文献评读Criticalappraisaltopic-秀传医疗社团法人秀传纪念医院.PPTVIP

2. Was this a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and was it appropriately so? Q : Yes. 本篇文章提及「 The patients by simple random sampling, were divided into two groups: Group I (GI - drug therapy associated with a specific acupuncture) and Group II (GII - drug therapy associated with non-specific acupuncture) 」且是藉由臨床實證來了解，有效針刺在具有調節腸胃功能的穴道上，是具緩解functional dyspepsia的療效，符合這份study想要探討的模式。 Detailed Questions 3. Were participants appropriately allocated to intervention and control groups? Q:Yes. 本篇文章提及「 The patients by simple random sampling, were divided into two groups: Group I (GI - drug therapy associated with a specific acupuncture) and Group II (GII - drug therapy associated with non-specific acupuncture) 」，代表實為隨機方式來分組。 3. Were participants appropriately allocated to intervention and control groups? 此次試驗的對象來源為Gastroenterology outpatient clinic of the University Hospital ，且在文章中有提及「The groups were similar in relation to gender, marital status and educational Level .The mean age of patients in the GI was significantly lower than GII. As to the type of FD, 11 patients (36.7%) were classified as dyspepsia type DPP and 19 (63.3%) as the EP (P = 0.705). Anxiety disorder was more common among the patients of, whereas the presence of depressive disorder showed no difference. The mean of the gastrointestinal symptom indices and quality of life was similar in both groups 」 代表這兩個群組除了年齡G2組較高之外，其餘條件在接受試驗沒有顯著的特質差異。  3.Were participants appropriately allocated to intervention and control groups? General characteristics of the sample 4. Were participants, staff and study personnel ‘blind’ to participants’ study group? Q : It can’t tell us about this question in detail. 本篇研究終點GSRS、QOL等皆用量表測量，未做到雙盲可能會有bias產生。而治療方法難以做到雙盲可說是此類研究的固有限制之一。 5. Were all of the participants who entered the trial accounted for at its conclusion? Q : Yes. 在本試驗中一開始即徵求30個受試者，而將他們隨機分為兩組，在最後評估數據統計值時的人數也依舊為30人，代表所有的受試者皆有完整參與此試驗，且其數據皆列入統計分析。 對照組和實驗組之n值皆為15人 6. Were the participants in all groups followed u