Обман в науке.
Глава 4. Гомеопатия.
49 ‘одного исследования’: Marshall Т. Reducing unnecessary consultation — a case of NNNT? // Bandolier. 1997. № 44 (4). P. 1–3.
51 ‘Но предметом исследования’: MacManus M.P., Matthews J.P., Wada М., Wirth A., Worotniuk V., Ball D.L. Unexpected long-term survival after low-dose palliative radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer // Cancer. 2006. № 106 (5) (1 March). P. 1110–1116.
55 ‘очень театрализованное исследование’: Majeed A.W. et al. Randomised, prospective, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy // Lancet. 1996. 347 (9007) (13 April). P. 989–94.
56 ‘исследование слепых экспериментов’: Schulz K.F., Chalmers I., Hayes R.J., Altman D.G. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials // JAMA. 1995. № 273. P. 408–412.
56 ‘обзор исследований’: Ernst Е., White A.R. Acupuncture for back pain: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Arch Int Med (1998); 158. P. 2235–41.
56 Рисунок: Ibid.
57 ‘стандартный обзор’ Ernst E., Pittler M.H. Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials // Arch Surg. 1998. № 133 (11) (November). P. 1187–1190.
60 ‘описаны два исследования’: Khan K.S., Daya S., Jadad A.R. The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews // Arch. Intern. Med. 1996. № 156. P. 661–666; Moher D., Pham B., Jones A. et al. Does quality of reports of randomized trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in metaanalyses? // Lancet. 1998. № 352. P. 609–613.
62 Рисунок: Ernst E., Pittler M.H. Re-analysis of previous metaanalysis of clinical trials of homeopathy // J. Clin. Epi. 2000. № 53 (11). P. 1188.
66 ‘Знаковый метаанализ’: Shang A., Huwiler-Miintener K., Nartey L., Jiini P., Dorig S., Sterne J.A., Pewsner D., Egger M. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy // Lancet. 27 August — 2 September. 2005. № 366 (9487). P. 726–732.
67 ‘Однажды больных’: Tallon D., Chard J., Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer // Lancet. 2000. № 355. P. 2037–2040.
61 ‘Они могут сработать’: BBC Radio 4 Case Notes (19 July 2005).
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
- 57.
- 58.
- 59.
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.
- 64.
- 65.
- 66.
- 67.
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
- 73.
- 74.
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.
- 78.
- 79.
- 80.
- 81.
- 82.
- 83.
- 84.
- 85.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
- 89.
- 90.
- 91.
- 92.
- 93.
- 94.