? asked in 藝術與人文詩詞與文學 · 8 years ago

一小篇關於醫學護理的英文翻譯報告 有人可以幫忙嗎 20點送上

趕時間 有人可以幫忙翻譯嗎 拜託拜託>"<

內容如下 是關於重症護理的 字數過多我用補充的

Figure2. methodological quality summary: review author’s judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

(第7頁標題)

Random sequence generation(selection bias)

Allocation concealment(selection bias)

Blinding(performance bias and detection bias):blinding participants

Blinding(performance bias and detection bias):blinding personnel delivering intervention

Blinding(performance bias and detection bias):blinding outcome assessors

Incomplete outcome data(attrition bias)

Selective reporting(reporting bias)

Other bias

(第7頁表格內)

Sequence generation

See characteristics of included studies

Random allocation to intervention groups remains the only

Method of ensuring that the only systematic difference between

The treatment groups is the intervention itself ,thus eliminating

Selection bias. The success of randomization depends on two inter-

Related processes. The first entails generating a sequence by which

Participants in a trial are allocated to intervention groups. To

Ensure unpredictability of that allocation sequence, investigators

Should generate it by a random process(e.g. computer generated

Numbers, random number tables or coin flipping )(EBN 2001).

Sequence generation was not reported for any of the six included

Trials.

Allocation concealment

This is the part of the allocation process and shields those in¬-

Volved in the trial from knowing upcoming assignm

ents in ad-

Vance without this protection, investigators have been known to

Change who gets the next assignment, thus introducing selection

Bias(EBN 2001). Because of poor reporting, we could not be con-

Fident that allocation was concealed in any of the included trials.

Blinding

Blinding of participants and of personnel delivering the intervene-

Tion was not clear across all included studies. Of the six RCTs in this

Review, we could be confident that blinded outcome assessment

Had been used in only one trial(D’Hemecourt 1998). Markevich

Update:

2000 reported that the study was double blinded, although they

Did not report who was blinded(it may be any or all of outcome as-

Sessor, patient, clinician or data analyst-see Devereaus 2002). The

Orther three trials(Jensen 1998;Piaggessi 1998;Vandeputte 1997)

Update 2:

Did not appear to use blinded outcome assessments. Vandeputte

1997 photographed the wounds every four weeks although it was

Unclear if and how these photographs were used in the analysis.

Whalley 2001 reported no information on blinding.

Update 3:

Incomplete outcome data

Four of the six trials addressed loss to follow up. Two studies

Reported no withdrawals(Piaggessi 1998; Vandeputte 1997) and

Two studies accounted for the withdrawals which had taken place

(D’Hemecourt 1998;Jensen 1998). This is important because

Update 4:

Excluding those people who withdrew from a study may lead to a

Misleading estimate of effectiveness as patients withdraw for non

Random reasons, including treatment failure.

Update 5:

An intention-to-treat analysis analyses participants in the groups

To which they were randomized, irrespective of the treatment re-

Ceived. Three of the six trials(D’ Hemecourt 1998;Markevich

2000;Vandeputte 1997) explicitly used an intention-to-treat anal-

Ysis.

Update 6:

Selective reporting of outcomes

Three of the included trials pre-specified study outcomes, all

Of which were reported (D’Hemecourt 1998; Piaggessi 1998;

Vandeputte 1997). Jensen 1998 did not clearly pre-specify study

Update 7:

Outcomes nor did the two conference reports (Markevich 2000;

Whalley 2001). Therefore, selective reporting of outcomes was

Not discernible in three trials.

Update 8:

Other bias

It is essential that the trials involving diabetic foot ulcers ensure

Baseline comparability of the treatment groups for initial area of

Ulceration (see Table 3). Margolis 1999 has demonstrated that

Baseline wound area is an important prognostic variable for foot

Update 9:

Ulcer healing. Trials involving diabetic foot ulcers (as with any

Other wound healing trials). Often express the change in wound area

As the percentage change ,which takes into account the initial size

Of the wound, unlike the absolute change in area (Margolis 1999) .

Update 10:

For two wounds healing at the same linear rate (as measured by

Diameter reduction), percentage area calculations will show a larger

Change for a smaller wound than a big wound. The converse is true

When the absolute change in area is measured, since for any unit

Update 11:

Reduction in wound radius a bigger area reduction will occur for

A larger wound (Bradley 1999). This has important consequences

For the validity of trial results where three is poor comparability

Of wound size at baseline between the treatment groups. In large

Update 12:

Trials random allocation should ensure that the average wound

Size and variance in each group is similar. In a small trial random

Allocation is unlikely to result in an even distribution of wound

Sizes. In a trial where three is poor comparability between groups

Update 13:

For wound size at baseline, and the outcome is based on the change

Is area, the result can only be considered valid if is obtained

Either: against the anticipated direction of the bias for wound size,

Or where percentage area change and absolute area change are in

Update 14:

The same direction. If baseline data are not given, then it is not

Possible to determine the direction of bias and the validity of the

Result cannot be determined.

Of the trials included, one trial(Markevich 2000) demonstrated

Update 15:

Their treatment groups were balanced for ulcer area at baseline.

D’Hemecourt 1998 reported that the ulcers in group treated with

Becaplermin gel were different with respect to mean ulcer area,

Depth and duration of ulcer than were the ulcers in the other

Update 16:

Two groups(NaCMC gel comparator group and’ good wound

Care’ control group); also sharp debridement was employed as

Deemed appropriate by the study investigator(see Characteristics

Update 17:

(Continued)

25 june 2002 New citation required and conclusions have changed Substantive amendment. First published version of re-view

2 Answers

Rating
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Figure2. methodological quality summary: review author’s judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

    (第7頁標題

    圖 2。方法學品質摘要: 為每個方法學品質的每一項有關審查提交人的判決包括研究

    Random sequence generation(selection bias)

    Allocation concealment(selection bias)

    Blinding(performance bias and detection bias):blinding participants

    Blinding(performance bias and detection bias):blinding personnel delivering intervention

    隨機序列生成 (選擇偏見)

    隱秘分配 (選擇偏見)

    致盲 (性能偏見和檢測偏見): 致盲參與者

    致盲 (性能偏見和檢測偏見): 致盲人員提供干預

    Blinding(performance bias and detection bias):blinding outcome assessors

    致盲 (性能偏見和檢測偏見): 致盲成果評審員

    Incomplete outcome data(attrition bias)

    Selective reporting(reporting bias)

    Other bias

    不完整的結果資料 (自然減員偏見)

    選擇性報告 (報告偏見)

    其他偏見

    (第7頁表格內)

    Sequence generation

    See characteristics of included studies

    Random allocation to intervention groups remains the only

    序列生成請參閱納入研究的特點隨機分配到干預組仍是唯一

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    太多了~你可以網路收尋一下翻譯字樣~

    PS不太像是醫學護理耶

  • Louis
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    應該花點錢送翻譯社的。

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.