Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Interesting stat for all the research oriented people out there. In 1982 only 11.1% of journal articles (clinical articles related to Efficacy Evaluation) in CJIM were controlled randomized - Numbering 4 In 1990 50.8% In 2002 88.3% (numbering 68) China is getting on the ball.. - <Chinese Medicine> tel: <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621> Add me to your address book... <http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a signature like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Jason Except that they all seem to be positive studies and that is very suspicious Oakland, CA 94609 - Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:05 PM stats Interesting stat for all the research oriented people out there. In 1982 only 11.1% of journal articles (clinical articles related to Efficacy Evaluation) in CJIM were controlled randomized - Numbering 4 In 1990 50.8% In 2002 88.3% (numbering 68) China is getting on the ball.. - <Chinese Medicine> tel: <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621> Add me to your address book... <http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a signature like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 , " " wrote: > In 1982 only 11.1% of journal articles (clinical articles related to > Efficacy Evaluation) in CJIM were controlled randomized - Numbering 4 > > In 1990 50.8% > > In 2002 88.3% (numbering 68) > > > > China is getting on the ball.. or is it? I just mentioned this on the TCM list: " Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR> .... The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective. Conclusions: Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries. " This was published in '98 http://tinyurl.com/zwjoj As a side-note: hospitals in China only would get subsidized if they produced a certain amount of clinical articles that were favourable. Most probably this is the cause of the publication bias. I read that hospitals are more and more self-sufficient now, so this might hopefully change in the future. However, saving face is still a popular sport in China... Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.