流弊文章 - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>Joke - 肚皮舞运动

流弊文章

流弊文章# Joke - 肚皮舞运动

h*32019-03-25 07:03

1 楼

http://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
摘要的Conclusions
Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping
from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention.
However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary
aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude
jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in
the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a
lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability
of the results to clinical practice.

w*g2019-03-25 07:03

2 楼

律师，只是律师才是产品的真正创造者！

stationary
★ 发自iPhone App: ChinaWeb 1.1.5
★ 发自iPhone App: ChinaWeb 1.1.5

【在 h*********3 的大作中提到】

: http://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
: 摘要的Conclusions
: Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping
: from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention.
: However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary
: aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude
: jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in
: the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a
: lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability
: of the results to clinical practice.

H*g2019-03-25 07:03

3 楼

Cello Scrotum
In 1974, Dr. Elaine Murphy submitted a brief case report under her husband's
name John which suggested a condition know as Cello Scrotum, a fictional
condition which supposedly affected male cellists. It was originally
submitted as a joke in response to 'guitar nipple'[20], a condition similar
to jogger's nipple in which some forms of guitar playing causes irritation
to the nipple, which Murphy and her husband believed was also a joke. The
case report was published in the BMJ[21] and although not widely cited, it
was cited on some occasions with those doing so expressing scepticism[22][23
]. The truth of the case was reported on back in 1991 [24] but it still
remained in the BMJ until 2009.
In 2009, 35 years after the original case report was published, Murphy wrote
a letter to the BMJ revealing that the condition was a hoax[25]. In this
case, a proper use of peer review would have prevented the case report from
being published.

H*g2019-03-25 07:03

4 楼

Why would we set out to ask such a ridiculous question? Some background may
be in order. In 2003, Smith and Pell published a tongue-in-cheek systematic
review which concluded that there were no randomised clinical trials (RCTs)
evaluating the effectiveness of parachutes in preventing major trauma
related to “gravitational challenge.” They argued that the “most radical
protagonists of evidence based medicine” should volunteer to participate in
a randomised, double blind trial of the parachute. In the two decades since
the appearance of this seminal work in The BMJ Christmas issue, the
parachute has been the paragon of biological plausibility. The saviour of
anecdote. The arch-nemesis of evidence based medicine. There isn’t a week
that goes by without a head shaking colleague reminding us that the
parachute hasn’t been tested in an RCT.

stationary
in
a

【在 h*********3 的大作中提到】