Yancey J M
Department of Growth and Special Care, School of Dentistry, University of Louisville, Kentucky 40292.
Am J Surg. 1990 Jun;159(6):533-9. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(06)80059-0.
This was not a scientific assessment of the scientific quality of the papers published by The American Journal of Surgery. It was an informal audit of the adequacy of the data analysis in the clinical research reports appearing in the 1987-1988 issues. As one who has devoted more than three decades to helping a great variety of people make sense of scientific data, I found the overall quality of data analysis in these papers to be above average for the medical literature; and yet, I found many instances of errors so serious as to render invalid the conclusions of the authors. My 10 proposed rules for reading clinical research reports constitute only an interim solution to a very worrisome problem. The real solution must come from the producers of and the gatekeepers for the medical literature.
这并非对《美国外科杂志》发表论文的科学质量进行的科学评估。这是对1987 - 1988年各期临床研究报告中数据分析充分性的一次非正式审核。作为一个花了三十多年时间帮助众多人理解科学数据的人,我发现这些论文中数据分析的总体质量高于医学文献的平均水平;然而,我发现许多错误实例非常严重,以至于作者的结论无效。我提出的阅读临床研究报告的十条规则只是对一个非常令人担忧的问题的临时解决方案。真正的解决方案必须来自医学文献的生产者和把关者。