斯坦福大学胡佛战争、革命与和平研究所(The Hoover Institution on War,Revolution and Peace,简称胡佛研究所)是保守派思想库,素有"右翼思潮的思想库"之称.该所在对共产主义及社会主义国家的研究方面独树一帜,此外还侧重于...斯坦福大学胡佛战争、革命与和平研究所(The Hoover Institution on War,Revolution and Peace,简称胡佛研究所)是保守派思想库,素有"右翼思潮的思想库"之称.该所在对共产主义及社会主义国家的研究方面独树一帜,此外还侧重于研究世界上文明冲突对政治经济造成的影响.具有鲜明的反共立场,而且这种立场有着深厚的历史渊源.小布什、里根、尼克松等共和党人竞选总统时,都有胡佛研究所的学者鼎立相助.里根执政时期,胡佛研究所的政策主张更是影响深远,为促成苏联的解体、冷战结束立下了汗马功劳.展开更多
Objective:The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials(CONSORT) statement has already proved to be an efficient standard for reporting quality of randomized controlled trials(RCTs).However,most of the Chinese me...Objective:The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials(CONSORT) statement has already proved to be an efficient standard for reporting quality of randomized controlled trials(RCTs).However,most of the Chinese medical journals have not endorsed the CONSORT statement.The current situation about the reporting quality of RCTs in Chinese medical journals is still unclear.The purpose of the study was to evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs on papers published in 5 leading Chinese medical journals.Methods:We evaluated 232 original RCT papers using a reporting quality scale based on CONSORT statement from 2001 to 2006 in 5 Chinese medical journals(Journal type 1) without adoption of CONSORT and Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine(Journal type 2) which adopted CONSORT in 2004.We measured the inclusion of 26 items for the reporting quality scale and 6 core items of each RCT report,gave score to each item and calculated the total score obtained in each report and the proportion of reports including individual items.The reporting quality of RCT trials from 2001 to 2003(pre-adoption period) was compared with that from 2004 to 2006(post-adoption period).Results:The average reporting quality of RCTs was moderate(mean score,15.18),and the mean score of the 6 core items was low(mean score,1.09) in 5 leading journals.The difference in the total score and the score of the 6 core items between pre-adoption period(2001-2003) and post-adoption period(2004-2006) was statistically significant(P=0.003;P=0.000).Interaction between journal type and period was not significant(F=0.76;P=0.383).We concluded that the change tendency of reporting quality between Journal type 1 and 2 was not different.But as to the core items of sequence concealment and intention-to-treat analysis,the increases were greater for Journal type 2 when evaluated against Journal type 1(P=0.038;P=0.016).Conclusion:The reporting quality of RCT trials in 5 leading Chinese medical journals is improving.However,the lack of important items in RCT trials remains a serious problem.We recommend the endorsement of the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials statement in Chinese medical journals and the continuing education on evidence-based medicine in China.展开更多
文摘斯坦福大学胡佛战争、革命与和平研究所(The Hoover Institution on War,Revolution and Peace,简称胡佛研究所)是保守派思想库,素有"右翼思潮的思想库"之称.该所在对共产主义及社会主义国家的研究方面独树一帜,此外还侧重于研究世界上文明冲突对政治经济造成的影响.具有鲜明的反共立场,而且这种立场有着深厚的历史渊源.小布什、里根、尼克松等共和党人竞选总统时,都有胡佛研究所的学者鼎立相助.里根执政时期,胡佛研究所的政策主张更是影响深远,为促成苏联的解体、冷战结束立下了汗马功劳.
文摘Objective:The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials(CONSORT) statement has already proved to be an efficient standard for reporting quality of randomized controlled trials(RCTs).However,most of the Chinese medical journals have not endorsed the CONSORT statement.The current situation about the reporting quality of RCTs in Chinese medical journals is still unclear.The purpose of the study was to evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs on papers published in 5 leading Chinese medical journals.Methods:We evaluated 232 original RCT papers using a reporting quality scale based on CONSORT statement from 2001 to 2006 in 5 Chinese medical journals(Journal type 1) without adoption of CONSORT and Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine(Journal type 2) which adopted CONSORT in 2004.We measured the inclusion of 26 items for the reporting quality scale and 6 core items of each RCT report,gave score to each item and calculated the total score obtained in each report and the proportion of reports including individual items.The reporting quality of RCT trials from 2001 to 2003(pre-adoption period) was compared with that from 2004 to 2006(post-adoption period).Results:The average reporting quality of RCTs was moderate(mean score,15.18),and the mean score of the 6 core items was low(mean score,1.09) in 5 leading journals.The difference in the total score and the score of the 6 core items between pre-adoption period(2001-2003) and post-adoption period(2004-2006) was statistically significant(P=0.003;P=0.000).Interaction between journal type and period was not significant(F=0.76;P=0.383).We concluded that the change tendency of reporting quality between Journal type 1 and 2 was not different.But as to the core items of sequence concealment and intention-to-treat analysis,the increases were greater for Journal type 2 when evaluated against Journal type 1(P=0.038;P=0.016).Conclusion:The reporting quality of RCT trials in 5 leading Chinese medical journals is improving.However,the lack of important items in RCT trials remains a serious problem.We recommend the endorsement of the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials statement in Chinese medical journals and the continuing education on evidence-based medicine in China.
