随机对照试验英语论文的评价实例.ppt

随机对照试验英语论文的评价实例,2011级护理系研究生 喻春红,论文简介：,1、题目： Can a brief psychological intervention prevent anxiety or depressive disorders in caner patients? A randomised controlled trial 2、来源：Annals of Oncology 2009 (20) 928-934 3、性质：Original article ,a randomised controlled trial 4、总体评价：全文结构完整、严谨，阐述详细、合理。,对研究问题的评价,1、是否提出了研究问题：The article title is the study problem also. 2、研究问题的来源：While most cancer patients report distress within the first year of diagnosis, 25%-40% develop anxiety or depressive disorders which impair quality of life for patients and their families. 3、研究问题是否可行：Psychological interventions have been developed to reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression by improving coping. 4、研究问题的重要性：The design of the trial was influenced by the fact that relatively few psychiatrists and psychologists word in the cancer field ,so a successful intervention carried out by such specialists would stand little chance of becoming part of routine care. 5、研究问题的创新性：No previous study has attempted to prevent, rather than treat ,anxiety or depressive disorders in a broad range of newly diagnosed cancer patients, though such preventive intervention has been recommended.,对研究目标的评价,1、研究者是否描述了研究目标：participants were patients recruited consecutively from clinics at a regional centre tor the treatment of cancer in Manchester(included both high- and low-risk patients) . 2、目标是否具体：between 18 and 70 years of age ,newly diagnosed with a first episode of cancer, judged to have a life expectancy of at least 2 years and consented to the trial. 3、澄清了研究的宗旨和目的:They hypothesis that a brief intervention, delivered by nonspecialists, would be superior to usual care in preventing the development of new anxiety or depresssive disorders during the year after starting treatment for cancer. 4、目标是否确定了研究的变量和总体：two outcome measures: The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM IIIR and The hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.,对文献回顾的评价,1、前人的相关研究是否被找到并描述出来：Evidence from the noncancer field suggests that prevention is most likely to be successful if a high-risk group is targeted for treatment; the strongest evidence relates to cognitive behavioural interventions used to prevent anxiety or depressive disorders . 2、相关理论是否被找到并描述出来：There is some evidence that such treatment might carry a slight risk of worsening depression in some patients. In addition, it is not known whether a psychological intervention could benefit ,or even hinder adjustment , in cancer patients considered to be at low risk of developing anxiety or depressive disorders. 3、是否全面描述了文献中的空白之处:同问题的创新。 4、文献回顾是否全面：references included 32 papers . 5、文献是否是最近期的：1980-2008.,对研究的理论(概念)框架的评价,No reffer,对科研设计的评价,1、研究的设计类型，是否有干预，有否对照组：有 2、是否做了预试验：无 3、如果设计中有干预，干预是否被祥细地被描述：Table 1 . Summary of the key points of the intervention 4、如果设立了对照组，该对照方法是否合适：randomised controlled,对测量工具的评价,1、本研究中测评工具是否有较好的信度和效度：成熟量表的使用 2、如果设计了新的量表，新量表是否做过预试验，并根据预试验结果做了相应修改：无新量表的使用。,对统计分析的评价,1、统计分析的目的是什么：Separate analyses a . differed between immediate and delayed intervention groups ;b. differed between the high- and low risk patients ; c. Associated with age ,gender ,previous psychiatric history, concerns scores or disease site. 2、是否采用了参数统计方法：using analysis of covariance to adjust for age, sex ,past history, baseline concerns and baseline total HADS scores. 7、是否使用表格来总结大量的统计资料，表格制件是否简明合理：4 tables and 2 figures,对结果与讨论的评价,1、对结果的讨论是否针对第一个研究目的、问题或假设：Our design is congruent with a model of service provision that delivers a brief psychological intervention to all high-risk patients with specialist referral only when necessary. In the light of current knowledge ,it does not seen to be appropriate to recommend our intervention for low-risk patients. 2、是否指出研究中存在的偏倚：Our therapists were tra