{"title":"骨科研究是否在方法论上被不公平地贬低了？","authors":"Helge Franke","doi":"10.1016/S1615-9071(24)00013-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A common feature of methodological quality checklists is that studies in which some or all participants are not blinded are downgraded. Blinding in RCTs („randomized controlled trials“) has been postulated as a criterion for methodological quality for decades, without studies having provided sufficiently robust results in this context. The results of a meta-epidemiological study impressively question the current practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100996,"journal":{"name":"Osteopathische Medizin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Werden osteopathische Studien zu Unrecht methodisch abgewertet?\",\"authors\":\"Helge Franke\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S1615-9071(24)00013-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>A common feature of methodological quality checklists is that studies in which some or all participants are not blinded are downgraded. Blinding in RCTs („randomized controlled trials“) has been postulated as a criterion for methodological quality for decades, without studies having provided sufficiently robust results in this context. The results of a meta-epidemiological study impressively question the current practice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Osteopathische Medizin\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Osteopathische Medizin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1615907124000133\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Osteopathische Medizin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1615907124000133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Werden osteopathische Studien zu Unrecht methodisch abgewertet?
A common feature of methodological quality checklists is that studies in which some or all participants are not blinded are downgraded. Blinding in RCTs („randomized controlled trials“) has been postulated as a criterion for methodological quality for decades, without studies having provided sufficiently robust results in this context. The results of a meta-epidemiological study impressively question the current practice.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
