This pilot study evaluated effectiveness and acceptance of a new hospital-based reproductive endocrinology curriculum among Iranian medical students. A voluntary, anonymous questionnaire was used to compare two teachi...This pilot study evaluated effectiveness and acceptance of a new hospital-based reproductive endocrinology curriculum among Iranian medical students. A voluntary, anonymous questionnaire was used to compare two teaching methods as applied to junior medical students at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Students were randomly assigned to one of two clinical teaching settings;no student experienced both modules. Coursework for the pilot (experimental) group (n = 19) utilized a teaching approach comprising lectures, genetics laboratory, pelvic ultrasound, small group sessions, and opportunities to observe advanced reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, ICSI, and embryo transfer. A control group (n = 34) received reproductive endocrinology instruction by the ‘traditional curriculum’, consisting mainly of lectures. Students were sampled at baseline and again atthe conclusion of their reproductive endocrinology session. Pre- and post-test data were analyzed for both groups;post-test differences between groups were also compared. No significant differences in mean age or gender mix were identified between the two study groups. Overall, the ques- tionnaire did not identify any significant intergroup differences for any parameter investigated. Although student acceptance rate appeared similar for both educational modules, the ratio of students having a “favorable regard” for reproductive medicine declined only among students randomized to the control group (41.2% vs. 32.3%). This report offers the first data on teaching reproductive endocrinology to medical students in Iran. Both traditional and innovative approaches to teaching reproductive endocrinology were well-accepted by students, although negative post-test responses were more common among students in the control group. While periodic quality assessments for existing clinical teaching methods are necessary, introduction of alternative teaching approaches is also important. Additional studies are planned to evaluate the impact this initiative may have on results on standardized tests measuring reproductive endocrinology knowledge, as well as election of further specialization in training.展开更多
"针刺临床试验干预措施报告标准"(STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture,STRICTA)于2001年和2002年在5种期刊上发表。该指南以对照检查清单及解释的形式供作者和期刊编辑使用,旨在提高..."针刺临床试验干预措施报告标准"(STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture,STRICTA)于2001年和2002年在5种期刊上发表。该指南以对照检查清单及解释的形式供作者和期刊编辑使用,旨在提高针刺临床试验报告的质量,尤其是对其中干预措施的报告,因而有助于对这些试验的解释和重复。随后对STRICTA的应用及影响的述评都强调了STRICTA的价值,也提出了改进和修订的建议。为使修订过程顺利进行,STRICTA工作组、CONSORT工作组和中国Cochrane中心于2008年开始合作。召集成立的有47名成员的专家组对清单的修改稿提出了电子版反馈意见。在后来于弗莱堡(Freiburg)召开的见面会上,由21名专家组成的工作组进一步修订了STRICTA对照检查清单,并计划如何对其进行发布。新的STRICTA对照检查清单作为CONSORT的正式扩展版,包含6项条目及17条二级条目。这些条目为报告针刺治疗的合理性、针刺的细节、治疗方案、其他干预措施、治疗师的背景以及对照或对照干预提供了指南。而且,作为修订工作的一部分,对每一条目作了详尽解释,并针对每一条目给出了报告良好的实例。此外,STRICTA中的"对照"(controlled)一词被替换成了"临床"(clinical),以示STRICTA适用于更广泛的各类临床评价设计,包括非对照结局研究和病例报道。修订的STRICTA对照检查清单有望与CONSORT声明及其非药物治疗扩展版一起共同提高针刺临床试验的报告质量。展开更多
近年来实效性临床试验受到更多重视,尤其在传统医学临床评价研究领域。为了提高实效性临床试验报告的质量,CONSORT声明组和医疗保健体系中的实效性随机对照临床试验(pragmatic randomized controlled trials in health care systems,PRA...近年来实效性临床试验受到更多重视,尤其在传统医学临床评价研究领域。为了提高实效性临床试验报告的质量,CONSORT声明组和医疗保健体系中的实效性随机对照临床试验(pragmatic randomized controlled trials in health care systems,PRACTIHC)小组对《CONSORT声明》进行了修改,以帮助读者评估试验质量和结果的可靠性。实效性试验报告指南,作为《CONSORT声明》的一个特殊扩展,能在报告、评价和应用实效性试验方面帮助编辑、系统评价者、试验设计者和决策者评估实效性试验报告中的信息,判定其结论是否适用,以及干预措施是否可行、可否被接受。2005年1月和2008年3月,在加拿大多伦多分别举行了为期两天的会议来探讨提高随机对照试验对卫生保健决策贡献的方法,焦点集中于实效性试验。2005年会,后扩展版草案修订清单发送至编写组成员,经过几次修订,编写组起草了一份摘要草案。在2008年讨论并修改了这一草案。这份草案发给CONSORT声明组以供修改并发表。这份声明的扩展版提出了对8个条目的补充。及时向国内读者和临床试验研究人员介绍该指南有重要的现实意义和学术价值。北京中医药大学循证医学中心刘建平教授等在短时间内翻译了该指南。本刊希望通过介绍中文版"提高实效性临床试验报告的质量——《CONSORT声明》的扩展"以提高国内实效性临床试验报告的质量,相信也有助于改进试验设计的方法学质量。展开更多
CONSORT声明被广泛用于提高随机对照临床试验的报告质量。Kenneth Schulz等对CONSORT声明的最新版本CONSORT2010作了详细说明,该版本基于新获得的方法学证据和经验的积累对报告指南作了更新。为了鼓励更多的人使用"CONSORT2010声明...CONSORT声明被广泛用于提高随机对照临床试验的报告质量。Kenneth Schulz等对CONSORT声明的最新版本CONSORT2010作了详细说明,该版本基于新获得的方法学证据和经验的积累对报告指南作了更新。为了鼓励更多的人使用"CONSORT2010声明",本文可从bmj.com免费获取,也将在Lancet,Obstetrics and Gynecology,PLoS Medicine,Annals of Internal Medicine,Open Medicine,Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,BMC Medicine和Trials等杂志发表。展开更多
为了提高系统综述和荟萃分析文章报告的质量,2009年由国际著名专家组成的系统综述和荟萃分析优先报告的条目(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,PRISMA)小组在国际重要医学期刊包括《英国医学杂志》...为了提高系统综述和荟萃分析文章报告的质量,2009年由国际著名专家组成的系统综述和荟萃分析优先报告的条目(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,PRISMA)小组在国际重要医学期刊包括《英国医学杂志》、《临床流行病学杂志》、《内科学年鉴》和美国《公共科学图书馆医学杂志》等同步发表了《系统综述与荟萃分析优先报告条目:PRISMA声明》。该标准的制定对于改进和提高系统综述和荟萃分析的报告质量将起到重要作用。该声明较以往制定的《随机对照试验荟萃分析报告质量》(Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses),即《QUOROM声明》更加全面、完善。由于近年采国内外对系统综述的高度重视,发表的文章数量也越来越多,因此,有必要规范报告的标准,提高报告的质量。这份声明对系统综述和荟萃分析类文章报告的27个条目及流程图进行了定义和介绍,对相关条目进行了详细的解释和说明。及时向国内读者和临床试验研究人员介绍该声明具有重要的现实意义和学术价值。北京中医药大学循证医学中心刘建平等在第一时间内翻译了该声明,本刊希望通过介绍中文版《系统综述与荟萃分析优先报告的条目:PRISMA声明》,以进一步提高国内系统综述文章撰写和报告的质量,同时也有助于改进研究设计的方法学质量。本文的英文原文"Preferred reporring items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:the PRISMAstatement"发表于PLoS Med.2009;6(7):e1000097.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097。该文中文版本由北京中医药大学循证医学中心李迅、曹卉娟翻译,刘建平审校(Tel:010-64286760;E-mail:jianping_l@hotmail.com)。中文译文的翻译出版由国家重点基础研究发展计划(973计划)项目资助(No.200608504602)。展开更多
“It is the responsibility of everyone involved to ensure that the published record is an unbiased,accurate representation of research”[1].The research record is often manipulated for short term gain but at the risk ...“It is the responsibility of everyone involved to ensure that the published record is an unbiased,accurate representation of research”[1].The research record is often manipulated for short term gain but at the risk of harm to patients.The medical research community needs to implement changes to ensure that readers obtain the truth about all research,especially reports of randomised trials,which hold a special place in answering what works best for patients.展开更多
文摘This pilot study evaluated effectiveness and acceptance of a new hospital-based reproductive endocrinology curriculum among Iranian medical students. A voluntary, anonymous questionnaire was used to compare two teaching methods as applied to junior medical students at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Students were randomly assigned to one of two clinical teaching settings;no student experienced both modules. Coursework for the pilot (experimental) group (n = 19) utilized a teaching approach comprising lectures, genetics laboratory, pelvic ultrasound, small group sessions, and opportunities to observe advanced reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, ICSI, and embryo transfer. A control group (n = 34) received reproductive endocrinology instruction by the ‘traditional curriculum’, consisting mainly of lectures. Students were sampled at baseline and again atthe conclusion of their reproductive endocrinology session. Pre- and post-test data were analyzed for both groups;post-test differences between groups were also compared. No significant differences in mean age or gender mix were identified between the two study groups. Overall, the ques- tionnaire did not identify any significant intergroup differences for any parameter investigated. Although student acceptance rate appeared similar for both educational modules, the ratio of students having a “favorable regard” for reproductive medicine declined only among students randomized to the control group (41.2% vs. 32.3%). This report offers the first data on teaching reproductive endocrinology to medical students in Iran. Both traditional and innovative approaches to teaching reproductive endocrinology were well-accepted by students, although negative post-test responses were more common among students in the control group. While periodic quality assessments for existing clinical teaching methods are necessary, introduction of alternative teaching approaches is also important. Additional studies are planned to evaluate the impact this initiative may have on results on standardized tests measuring reproductive endocrinology knowledge, as well as election of further specialization in training.
基金White RoseHealth Innovation Partnership Enterprise and Innovation Office+7 种基金 Charles Thackrah Building 101 Clarendon RoadLeeds LS2 9LJLeeds UK提供资金支持UK National Institute for Health Research的一项Career Scientist Award资助Cancer Research UK资助University of Ottawa Research Chair资助
文摘"针刺临床试验干预措施报告标准"(STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture,STRICTA)于2001年和2002年在5种期刊上发表。该指南以对照检查清单及解释的形式供作者和期刊编辑使用,旨在提高针刺临床试验报告的质量,尤其是对其中干预措施的报告,因而有助于对这些试验的解释和重复。随后对STRICTA的应用及影响的述评都强调了STRICTA的价值,也提出了改进和修订的建议。为使修订过程顺利进行,STRICTA工作组、CONSORT工作组和中国Cochrane中心于2008年开始合作。召集成立的有47名成员的专家组对清单的修改稿提出了电子版反馈意见。在后来于弗莱堡(Freiburg)召开的见面会上,由21名专家组成的工作组进一步修订了STRICTA对照检查清单,并计划如何对其进行发布。新的STRICTA对照检查清单作为CONSORT的正式扩展版,包含6项条目及17条二级条目。这些条目为报告针刺治疗的合理性、针刺的细节、治疗方案、其他干预措施、治疗师的背景以及对照或对照干预提供了指南。而且,作为修订工作的一部分,对每一条目作了详尽解释,并针对每一条目给出了报告良好的实例。此外,STRICTA中的"对照"(controlled)一词被替换成了"临床"(clinical),以示STRICTA适用于更广泛的各类临床评价设计,包括非对照结局研究和病例报道。修订的STRICTA对照检查清单有望与CONSORT声明及其非药物治疗扩展版一起共同提高针刺临床试验的报告质量。
基金Financial support was provided by the following sources to convene a meeting of the CONSORT Group in Montebello Canada+9 种基金in January 2007:the American Society of Clinical OncologyBMJCanadian Institutes for Health ResearchJohnson & JohnsonThe LancetNordic Cochrane CentrePLoS Medicine UK Cochrane Centreand UK National Co-ordinating Centre for Research Methodology.DM is supported by a University of Ottawa Research Chair.国家重点基础研究发展计划(973计划)项目资助(No.2006CB504602)。
文摘背景:对于与随机对照试验(randomized controlled trial,RCT)有关的学术会议论文或期刊中发表的文章来说,清楚、明了、信息量充足的摘要是十分重要的,因为读者经常仅仅根据报告的摘要对一个临床试验作出评价。为此,我们需要对"临床试验报告的统一标准(Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials,CONSORT)声明"进行扩充,制定一个期刊与学术会议论文摘要中报告RCT的必备条目清单。今后在任何期刊发表的论文或学术会议论文摘要中,作者对RCT结果的报告都要包含这些内容。方法与结果:我们根据现有的质量评价工具和基于经验的证据总结出一个条目清单。运用三轮修正式德尔菲法(modified-Delphi process)进行条目筛选。邀请共计109人参与电子网络调查,反馈率为61%。调查结果于2007年1月在加拿大蒙特贝罗举行的CONSORT小组会议中公布,与会的26人中有临床试验实施人员、统计学家、流行病学家以及生物医学编辑。经过讨论最终确定条目,随后对其进行修订以保证这些条目体现了会议期间以及会后的讨论思路。摘要CONSORT建议RCT报告的摘要需要有一个结构化的格式,其中应该包括具体的试验目的、试验设计(随机分配的方法、盲法或遮蔽等)、研究对象(对象描述、随机分组的样本量以及用于分析的样本量)、每组实施的干预、实施的干预对主要疗效结果的影响及其危害、试验结论、试验注册名称和编号以及资金来源。本文对每一条能够找到例子的纳入条目都配有良好报告范例、基本原理以及证据等,十分明了易懂,因此我们建议与清单同时使用。结论:摘要CONSORT旨在改善期刊与学术会议中发表的论文摘要的质量,这将有助于摘要提供详尽清晰的信息,这些信息能够帮助读者对试验的有效性和试验结果的适用性做出正确的评价。
文摘近年来实效性临床试验受到更多重视,尤其在传统医学临床评价研究领域。为了提高实效性临床试验报告的质量,CONSORT声明组和医疗保健体系中的实效性随机对照临床试验(pragmatic randomized controlled trials in health care systems,PRACTIHC)小组对《CONSORT声明》进行了修改,以帮助读者评估试验质量和结果的可靠性。实效性试验报告指南,作为《CONSORT声明》的一个特殊扩展,能在报告、评价和应用实效性试验方面帮助编辑、系统评价者、试验设计者和决策者评估实效性试验报告中的信息,判定其结论是否适用,以及干预措施是否可行、可否被接受。2005年1月和2008年3月,在加拿大多伦多分别举行了为期两天的会议来探讨提高随机对照试验对卫生保健决策贡献的方法,焦点集中于实效性试验。2005年会,后扩展版草案修订清单发送至编写组成员,经过几次修订,编写组起草了一份摘要草案。在2008年讨论并修改了这一草案。这份草案发给CONSORT声明组以供修改并发表。这份声明的扩展版提出了对8个条目的补充。及时向国内读者和临床试验研究人员介绍该指南有重要的现实意义和学术价值。北京中医药大学循证医学中心刘建平教授等在短时间内翻译了该指南。本刊希望通过介绍中文版"提高实效性临床试验报告的质量——《CONSORT声明》的扩展"以提高国内实效性临床试验报告的质量,相信也有助于改进试验设计的方法学质量。
基金United Kingdom National Institute for Health ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health Research+4 种基金Presidents FundCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchJohnson & JohnsonBMJthe American Society for Clinical Oncology
文摘大量证据显示随机对照临床试验(randomised controlled trial,RCT)的报告质量不理想。报告不透明,则读者既不能评判试验结果是否真实可靠,也不能从中提取可用于系统综述的信息。最近的方法学分析表明,报告不充分和设计不合理与对治疗效果产生评价偏倚有关。这种系统误差对RCT损害严重,而RCT正是以其能减少或避免偏倚而被视为评价干预措施的金标准。为了提高RCT的报告质量,一个由专家和编辑组成的工作组制定了临床试验报告的统一标准(Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials,CONSORT)声明。CONSORT声明于1996年首次发表,并于2001年更新。声明由对照检查清单和流程图组成,供作者在报告RCT时使用。许多核心医学期刊和主要国际性编辑组织都已认可CONSORT声明。该声明促进了对RCT的严格评价和解释。2001年,在对CONSORT进行修订时,人们就已经清楚地认识到,解释和说明制定CONSORT声明的原理,有助于研究人员等撰写或评价临床试验报告。一篇CONSORT说明与详述文章于2001年同2001版CONSORT声明一起发表。2007年1月的专家会议之后,对CONSORT声明作了进一步修订并已发表,即"CONSORT2010声明"。这次更新对原版对照检查清单作了文字上的修改,使其更为明晰,并收入了与一些新近才认识到的主题相关的建议,如选择性报告结局产生的偏倚。说明与详述文件旨在加强人们对CONSORT声明的理解、应用和传播,这次也作了大量修订,对每一项新增或更新的清单条目的含义和增改理由进行了解释,提供了优秀的报告实例,还尽可能地提供了相关的经验性研究的参考文献。文中收入了若干流程图实例。"CONSORT2010声明"、其说明与详述文件,以及相关网站(www.consort-statement.org),对于改进随机临床试验报告必将有所裨益。
文摘CONSORT声明被广泛用于提高随机对照临床试验的报告质量。Kenneth Schulz等对CONSORT声明的最新版本CONSORT2010作了详细说明,该版本基于新获得的方法学证据和经验的积累对报告指南作了更新。为了鼓励更多的人使用"CONSORT2010声明",本文可从bmj.com免费获取,也将在Lancet,Obstetrics and Gynecology,PLoS Medicine,Annals of Internal Medicine,Open Medicine,Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,BMC Medicine和Trials等杂志发表。
文摘为了提高系统综述和荟萃分析文章报告的质量,2009年由国际著名专家组成的系统综述和荟萃分析优先报告的条目(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,PRISMA)小组在国际重要医学期刊包括《英国医学杂志》、《临床流行病学杂志》、《内科学年鉴》和美国《公共科学图书馆医学杂志》等同步发表了《系统综述与荟萃分析优先报告条目:PRISMA声明》。该标准的制定对于改进和提高系统综述和荟萃分析的报告质量将起到重要作用。该声明较以往制定的《随机对照试验荟萃分析报告质量》(Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses),即《QUOROM声明》更加全面、完善。由于近年采国内外对系统综述的高度重视,发表的文章数量也越来越多,因此,有必要规范报告的标准,提高报告的质量。这份声明对系统综述和荟萃分析类文章报告的27个条目及流程图进行了定义和介绍,对相关条目进行了详细的解释和说明。及时向国内读者和临床试验研究人员介绍该声明具有重要的现实意义和学术价值。北京中医药大学循证医学中心刘建平等在第一时间内翻译了该声明,本刊希望通过介绍中文版《系统综述与荟萃分析优先报告的条目:PRISMA声明》,以进一步提高国内系统综述文章撰写和报告的质量,同时也有助于改进研究设计的方法学质量。本文的英文原文"Preferred reporring items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:the PRISMAstatement"发表于PLoS Med.2009;6(7):e1000097.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097。该文中文版本由北京中医药大学循证医学中心李迅、曹卉娟翻译,刘建平审校(Tel:010-64286760;E-mail:jianping_l@hotmail.com)。中文译文的翻译出版由国家重点基础研究发展计划(973计划)项目资助(No.200608504602)。
文摘“It is the responsibility of everyone involved to ensure that the published record is an unbiased,accurate representation of research”[1].The research record is often manipulated for short term gain but at the risk of harm to patients.The medical research community needs to implement changes to ensure that readers obtain the truth about all research,especially reports of randomised trials,which hold a special place in answering what works best for patients.
基金资助 （Funding）： KGMM, YV, and DEG are supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research （ZON-MW 917. 46. 360）. PR is supported by the UK Medical Research Council （U. 1228. 06. 001. 00002.01 ）. DGA is supported by Cancer Research UK.
基金United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research+7 种基金Presidents FundCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchJohnson&JohnsonBMJthe American Society for Clinical OncologyDouglas G Altman受Cancer Research UK资助David Moher受University of Ottawa Research Chair资助Kenneth F Schulz受Fami-ly Health International资助
文摘CONSORT声明被广泛应用于提高随机对照临床试验的报告质量。Kenneth Schulz等对CONSORT声明的最新版本CONSORT 2010作了详细说明,该版本基于新获得的方法学证据和经验的积累对报告指南作了更新。为了鼓励更多的人使用"CONSORT 2010声明",本文可从www.bmj.com免费获取,也将在Lancet,Obstetrics and Gynecology,PLoS Medicine,Annals of Internal Medicine,Open Medicine,Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,BMC Medicine和Trials等杂志发表。
