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... show more 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 2