搜索
文献评价报告学生姓名：***班级:****学号：***本科专业：****现攻读专业：***导师：****评价论文题目：Associationbetweenlow-dosefolicacidsupplementationandbloodlipidsconcentrationsinmaleandfemalesubjectswithatherosclerosisriskfactors.出处：MedSciMonit.2013;19:733–739.设计类型:DRUGCONTROLLEDSTUDIES药物对照研究论文性质：预防1.选题是否具有科学性与创新性?文章的提出有科学性，有创新性，可行性，与临床密切相关However,thepreventiveeffectofFAoncardiovasculardiseaseremainsunclear.Large-scaleclinicaltrialsfailedtoshowabenefitfromHcy-loweringtreatmentinindividualswithestablishedcardiovasculardiseaseorwithhistoryofmyocardialinfarction.However,thosestudiesevaluatedhigh-doseFAsupplementationassecondarypreventionandwerenotinvestigatinglow-doseFAsupplementationasprimarypreventionofcardiovasculardisease.2.研究目的是否明确?是，明确。Theaimofthisstudywastoanalyzetheassociationoflow-dosefolicacidsupplementationwithbloodlipidsconcentrationsinsubjectswithatherosclerosisriskfactors.3.设计方案是否作了优选?研究对象是否明确?样本数量是否作了估算?类型：药物对照（自身前后对照），临床试验性研究样本选择：Initially,FAsupplementationwasofferedto147subjects,23ofwhom(15.6%)wereexcludedinthecourseofthestudyduetonon-compliance(irregulartakingofFA,stoppingitaltogether,ornotreportingforthefollow-upexaminationattheendofthetreatmentperiod).未做样本含量估算。Thestudyenrolled124Caucasianindividuals(60M,ages20–39;and64F,ages19–39)withatherosclerosisriskfactors(familyhistoryofprematureischemicstroke,arterialhypertension,dyslipidemia,overweightandobesity,cigarettesmoking,andlowlevelofphysicalactivity).样本选取合适4.诊断标准/纳入标准/排除标准是否明确?衡量指标是否恰当?所用名词定义明确，诊断指标，测量方法，结局指标清晰，可靠性高5.研究或试验流程是否明确?有无质量控制措施？共5个表，结果清晰，资料详尽，内部符合性高6.统计方法是否正确?采用统计方法合理，按男女分层分析，再按不同危险因素分析，控制和调整了混杂因素7.对该论文的总体感受如何？设计清晰，数据清晰，指标明确，有创新，贴近临床版面清晰Inviewofourresults,itseemsthatlow-doseFAsupplementation,usedasprimaryprevention,hasabeneficialeffectonbloodlipidsthroughdecreasingconcentrationsoftotalcholesterolandLDLandincreasingconcentrationsofapoAI.TodeterminethevalueofFAinprimarycardiovasculardiseaseprevention,furtherstudiesareneeded.为研究所证实，回答了研究问题