clinical studies

[Guest guest]

..

I wonder about " cure " rates and perhaps translation. The below is a reliable

translation, in my view, that gives clear indications of efficacy. While

" improvement " rates are quite high the " cure rate " is of course much smaller.

Without such a differenciation of the criteria then its easy to see high rates

of " cure " .

doug

 

Qi Jing, Guan You Bo

(Beijing TCM Hospital, Beijing 100010)

 

Standard for Determining Treatment Efficacy

 

1.1 Fundamental Clinical Cure

(1) Elimination of clinical symptoms. (2) Hepatomegaly and swelling of the liver

are stable or unmoved or shrunk, and liver has no pain upon pressure or

percussion pain. (3) Liver function exam shows recovery to normal. (4) HCV-RNA

is negative. (5) Above findings are continuously stable for more than 6 months.

1.2 Effective

(1) The elimination of more than half or improvement of more than 2/3 of

clinical symptoms. (2) Hepatomegaly and swelling of the liver showing no change

or movement, or clearly shrinking. No presence of pain with pressure or

percussion pain in the liver area. (3) Liver function returning to normal. (4)

HCV-RNA not staying negative continuously for 6 months or positive.

1.3 Improved

(1) Elimination of more than 1/3 of symptoms or improvement of more than half.

(2) Hepatomegaly and swelling of liver are stable, without any change, or

shrunk, and the liver has no pain upon pressure or percussion pain. (3) Liver

function panel dropped more than before treatment. (4) HCV-RNA is positive.

1.4 Not Effective

Patients who did not achieve the above results.

[Guest guest]

I wonder about "cure" rates and perhaps translation. The below is a reliable translation, in my view, that gives clear indications of efficacy. While "improvement" rates are quite high the "cure rate" is of course much smaller. Without such a differenciation of the criteria then its easy to see high rates of "cure".doug>>>>Doug I am sure there are problems with translation. And from what I understand the style of writing articles has improved a lot lately including the use of real statistical methods. There seem however to still be panty of poorly written articles.

>>Alon

[Guest guest]

All,

 

The recent thread about falsity in reporting

on clinical trials addresses an important issue

that the whole profession should be seriously

concerned about. It is in no way an issue that

is unique to China or Chinese medicine. Here's just one

link that will provide information and possibly

insight into the wider implications of this

issue of cooking data, slanting studies, and

all sorts of other variations on the theme of

misleading the public and the profession

concerning the efficacy of treatments.

 

http://www.who.int/dap-icium/posters/4P7_fintext.html

 

As the various data at this link suggest,

money is one of the primary motives of people who

engage in this kind of deception. Follow the

dollar and you'll find the people who are

manipulating data.

 

This sort of manipulation of data to mislead

people always involves (if it does not depend upon)

the manipulation of language.

 

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

It is in no way an issue thatis unique to China or Chinese medicine.

>>>No question about it

Alon