摘要
根据Cochrane中心手检指南 ,对 13种中西医、中医核心杂志近 2 0年所载论文进行逐篇手检 ,并对其中RCTs文章进行方法学质量评述。结果表明 ,检索共 2 315期 ,论文总数 90 42 1篇 ,其中临床研究论文 32 939篇 ,占 36 43% ,在临床试验论文中 ,属RCTs者共 3312篇占 10 0 6 %。其中以中国中西医结合杂志最多占 2 4 2 4% ,其余依次为北京中医药大学学报、山西中医、辽宁中医杂志和中医杂志 ,最低者仅占 4 0 3%。通过逐年统计 ,80年代初期RCT构成比均在 5 %以下。 90年代开始明显上升 ,到 1995～ 1998,中国中西医结合杂志高达 47 0 8% ,其余依次为北京中医药大学学报、中医杂志和辽宁中医杂志分别占 33 74%、 2 5 78%和 2 1 75 %。其余杂志直至90年代后期其RCT构成比仍在 2 0 %以下。依次为山西中医、山东中医杂志、江苏中医、新中医、上海中医杂志、浙江中医杂志、云南中医杂志、四川中医和陕西中医。最低者仅占 7 35 %和 7 0 2 %。本组双盲试验极少 ,仅有71篇占 2 14%。在RCTs论文中 ,绝大多数文章只有“随机”字样 ,但没有记载具体的随机方法和组间基线的可比性。即使个别有记载也过于简单。多数没有纳入标准和排除标准 ,部分没有诊断标准及疗效观察指标 ,部分期刊所载RCTs论文缺乏客观观察指标。疗程?
WT5”BZ]According to the hand-search guideline of Cochrane center,we hand-searched 13 core journals of traditional Chinese medicine integrated western medicine(TCM-WM)or traditional Chinese medicine(TCM)published in recent 20 years.The results showed that there were 32939(36 43%)clinical research articles in a total of 90421 articles of 2315 volumes.In them 3312(10 06%)in the category of RCTs.The number of RCTs in Chinese Journal of TCM-WM was ranked the first position(24 24%),and followed by Journal of Beijing University of TCM,Shanxi Journal of TCM,Liaoning Journal of TCM and Journal of TCM.The lowest was only 4 03%.In early 80's,the adoption of RCTs was all below 5% in these journals,and in creased its ase significantly in 90's.In the year 1995 to 1998,the constitutive ratio of RCTs in Chinese Journal of TCM-WM risen up to the scale of 47 08%,followed by Journal of Beijing University of TCM,Journal of TCM and Liaoning Journal of TCM with the rates of 33 74%,25 78% and 21 75%.The adoption of RCTs in the rest journals was less than 20% in the late 90's,and the lowest was only 7 35% including Shanxi Journal of TCM,Shangdong Journal of TCM,Jiangsu Journal of TCM,Xin Zhongyi,Shanghai Journal of TCM,Zhejiang Journal of TCM,Yunnan Journal of TCM,Sichuan Journal of TCM and Shanxi Journal of TCM.We only found 71(2 14%)randomized double blinded trials.Most of RCTs declared “randomized' literally,but without any description of the randomization method,baseline of comparability or oversimpliflation.Most of the RCTs were lack of inclusion or exclusion criteria,some diagnostic and curative criteria,and external observation parameter.Some used nonstandard period of treatment and the contents of samples were too small.Most of the RCTs implemented incorrect statistical method.Thus the results showed limitation in term of prospective ability,randomization,comparability and creditability.The quality most of the RCTs treatises and experience communication pablished in Chinese Journal of TCM-WM had high quahity. [WT5”HZ]
出处
《华西医学》
CAS
2000年第3期266-269,共4页
West China Medical Journal
