|
投稿を妨害する「文字」が含まれていたようだ。その文字を排除の上、投稿する >>10 そこの「スマホ」回線とやら（失笑）。しかし、お前「頭」本当に悪いなあ。手取足取り「詳細」を教えないと、理解できないのか？ ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses ●
Main results
We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low‐certainty evidence). One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non‐inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID‐19 patients. ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
と述べ （Hand hygiene compared to controlに関しては、今は割愛する）
↓
Authors' conclusions
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated. There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. コクランレビューの著者たちは、以下の注意点にも言及しつつ A)試験におけるバイアスのリスクが高いこと
B）アウトカム測定にばらつきがあること
C)試験中の介入の遵守が比較的低いこと
しかし結論としては
医療用または手術用のマスクに関して
マスク利用した場合と、利用していない場合に関して「ほとんど差がない」
N95/P2レスピレーターと医療・外科用マスクの比較に関しても、マスク着用、非着用に「ほぼ差がない」
大規模RCTの解析を行い、マスク利用すれば感染症を有意に予防できるというメタ解析は１件も「無い」のである。これがこのコクランレビューの結論であり、つまりマスクには「効果はない」。これがコクランレビューの「結論だ」。マスクすれば感染を予防できるというRCTは「１つも」存在していないのだから。
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
さてと。次はコクランレビューの編集長の「コメント」を吟味する
https://www.cochrane.org/ja/node/81904
Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' review
The Cochrane Review 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' was published in January 2023 and has been widely misinterpreted. Karla Soares-Weiser, Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library, has responded on behalf of Cochrane:
●
Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.
It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses. The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: 'The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.' Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm. The original Plain Language Summary for this review stated that 'We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.' This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.
編集長のKarla Soares-Weiserは、マスクをすれば感染を予防「できる」などと、一言も発言してないじゃないか。大爆笑
この馬鹿はコクランレビューは誤解を招くような文章の書き方をしてしまいました、その点をお詫びしますと述べているだけだ。 レビュー筆者らが結論づけた「マスクして感染を予防できたという事例は１つもなく、マスクを利用したら感染を予防することができたと実証するメタ解析は１つもない」が、このレビューの結論だ。マスクを利用すれば、感染を予防できたというメタ解析は１つも「無い」んだよ。
爆
しかも、この馬鹿編集長の声明を読んでも「マスクすれば感染を予防できます」「感染を予防できたメタ解析がありました」という、発言は、１つも「無い」。失笑。
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
おい「そこの」能無し「スマホ回線で失礼します」マスク警察よ
エラソーな能書きを垂れるのなら、今、この論文を巡ってコクランレビュー執筆者たちと、この馬鹿編集長の間で「何が」起きているか？そこまで、正確に言及するべきだろう。 なぜ意図的に触れようとしないんだ？
お前「賢い」んだろ？
↓
https://twitter.com/MaryanneDemasi/status/1635977279347228673
Maryanne Demasi, PhD
@MaryanneDemasi
BREAKING: Did Cochrane sacrifice its researchers to appease critics?
Authors of the latest Cochrane review angered by Cochrane's capitulation to pressure from critics Maryanne Demasi, PhD
@MaryanneDemasi
·
3月15日
返信先:
@MaryanneDemasi
さん
In the statement, Karla Soares-Weiser, Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library said that commentators had made “inaccurate and misleading” claims about the study and that wording in the summary of the review “was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize.”
Maryanne Demasi, PhD
@MaryanneDemasi
·
3月15日
“It was upsetting,” said Jefferson (lead author of the review). “Cochrane has thrown its own researchers under the bus again. The apology issued by Cochrane is from Soares-Weiser, *not* from the authors of the review.”
Maryanne Demasi, PhD
@MaryanneDemasi
·
3月15日
An emergency meeting with the authors of the Cochrane review was convened today, to discuss a plan of action. I am told they “all reached an agreement”. “We’ve decided that we are going to write to Cochrane leadership and complain about the way this has been handled...." Maryanne Demasi, PhD
@MaryanneDemasi
·
3月15日
“In this instance, Soares-Weiser has gone outside the normal channels and made decisions without any consultation with the authors of the review. It is unacceptable,” said Jefferson. Maryanne Demasi, PhD
@MaryanneDemasi
·
3月15日
The Cochrane authors say they will not buckle under the pressure of Cochrane leadership. “We are the copyright holders of the review, so *we* decide what goes in or out of the review. We do not change our reviews on the basis of what the media wants,” said Jefferson.
Maryanne Demasi, PhD
@MaryanneDemasi
·
3月15日
“I think Soares-Weiser has made a colossal mistake. It sends the message that Cochrane can be pressured by reporters to change their reviews. .... It has set a dangerous precedent,” added Jefferson.
Maryanne Demasi, PhD
@MaryanneDemasi
·
3月15日
“I will also contact
@nytimes
about the article where @zeynep used her platform to attack my credibility. She mentioned my name 6 times in her piece, despite there being multiple authors... She has no track record of publishing original research on acute respiratory illnesses..."
Maryanne Demasi, PhD
@MaryanneDemasi
·
3月15日
Cochrane has a history of capitulating to pressure when researchers in the organisation come to scientific conclusions that are controversial. For more, please sign up to my substack
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
この馬鹿編集長は、コクランレビュー執筆者らの許可も得ず「独断」で、本件謝罪を行ったことが分かる。
執筆者らは誰一人、納得しておらず、執筆者会議を開催の上で、この馬鹿編集長と雑誌に「抗議」することを決めたと。
コクランレビューの執筆者たちは
3月15日
The Cochrane authors say they will not buckle under the pressure of Cochrane leadership. “We are the copyright holders of the review, so *we* decide what goes in or out of the review. We do not change our reviews on the basis of what the media wants,” said Jefferson.
コクランレビュー編集長の圧力に屈服することは「ない」と主張し、「俺たちはコクランレビューの著作権者であり、論文に何を書き、また何を削除するかを決定できる」としたうえで、マスゴミが何を望むか次第でレビューの「内容を書き換えるようなことはしない」と。
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー 京大の医療占い師「西浦42万人」が、罵倒されているのは本件コクランレビューの馬鹿編集長が「お詫び」したことの意味を勘違いし、コクランレビュの内容そのものが間違いだから、編集長が謝罪した＝つまりマスクに効果はあるとコクランレビューは主張を変えた、と西浦が誤解し発言したことによって自爆したからだ（失笑）。京大の教授のくせに「英文」もまともに読めない、理解できない、そして解釈できないと西浦は袋叩きにされてんだよ。この馬鹿編集長は、レビュー執筆者らと協議の上でお詫びを掲載したわけでもなく、また内容の間違いを執筆者らに認めさせたうえでお詫びをコメントしているわけでもない。それどころか、この馬鹿編集長はマスクに効果があると主張できる根拠は１つも持っておらず、共同執筆者らから猛抗議を受けている真っ最中だ。現時点でも共同執筆者たちは、コクランレビューの内容を１つも書き換えていない。これが「事実」だよ、爆。
「スマホ回線」よ。
ここまで「いちいち」丁寧に、詳細「手取足取り」説明してあげないと「理解」できないのか？
お前、一体「何歳」だよ？
ちったぁ「自分の脳味噌」で考えるなり、検索して「正しい情報」を取捨選択できねえのか？
お前こそ
便壺愛爺＝スマホ回線男
類は友を呼ぶ、の悪見本だな「スマホ回線」野郎
出直してこい。
|
スパムメールの中から見つけ出すためにメールのタイトルには必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。