Acupuncture for pain: An overview of Cochrane reviews

Objective  

Cochrane reviews have the reputation for being more transparent and rigorous than other reviews. The aim of this overview was to evaluate and summarize Cochrane reviews of acupuncture for the treatment of any type of pain.     

科技期刊合著论文作者的贡献与署名

科研合作和合著论文多作者署名的普遍出现是科技进步的表现。但目前也存在一些合著论文作者署名不规范、不合理的现象。本文梗概地介绍了科技期刊合著论文作者署名的依据、规则,通常做法,新近出现的等同贡献作者署名行为。针对署名中存在的学术不端问题,提出一种新的署名做法,即标示署名作者贡献及责任. 希望此做法能得到科技期刊编辑能广泛认同与使用,以规范科研论文作者署名的行为,防范学术腐败的滋生。     

图书馆工作中著作权合理使用问题

依据著作权法的有关规定,对图书馆工作中遇到的有关著作权问题,如图书馆的借阅权、复制权、演蜂权、外文书刊的采集等进行了论述,并就完善著作权法,解决图书馆工作中的著作权问题提出建议.     

Problems with indexing and citation of articles with group authorship

Context  It is not known whether articles with group authorship (ie, with a research group name listed as the author) are difficult to identify or whether use of group authorship may lead to problems with citation. Methods  To examine ways in which reports of controlled trials with group authorship are indexed and citations counted in bibliographic databases, we conducted a cross-sectional study in January 2000. We identified 47 controlled trials funded by the National Eye Institute and 285 associated articles. Between January and August 2000, we searched PubMed and Science Citation Index (SCI) and recorded the citation practices for these articles. Our main outcome measures were ways in which trial reports were listed in PubMed and SCI and number of citations to each report by type of authorship. Results  Of the 285 published reports identified, 126 (44%) had group authorship, 109 (38%) had modified group authorship (listing individual names plus the name of the research group), and 50 (18%) had named authors only. In PubMed, no group authors were listed in the author field (per MEDLINE rules); in SCI, group-authored reports generally were incorrectly attributed (first name on investigator list [35.3%], first name on writing committee [25.5%], contact name [16.7%], anonymous [16.7%], and other [5.9%]). Using the SCI general search, we identified citations to 16.7% of group-authored reports, compared with citations to 96.9% of reports with modified group authorship and 93.9% of citations to reports with named authors only. Other systematic search methods found that more than 98% of group-authored reports actually had been cited and that group-authored reports were cited more than other reports. Conclusions  Indexing systems are not optimally adapted to group authorship. We recommend that indexing services change their practices to include group authors in the author field to help correct the problem.      

鬼形红细胞中约氏疟原虫的形态

目的动态观察鬼形红细胞中约氏疟原虫各期的形态特征.方法用皂化和低渗技术,使约氏疟原虫感染的红细胞溶血变成鬼形细胞,在扫描和透射电镜下观察不同生活史阶段的红内期疟原虫形态结构.结果鬼形红细胞内的疟原虫形态结构完整,呈现红内期各期疟原虫的特征性结构,如红细胞膜源性纳虫空泡,指环样早期滋养体,"褡裢"(brassiere)样早期裂殖体,裂殖体表面新生芽体和葡萄串样晚期裂殖体的外形;早期滋养体的胞口、食物泡和结晶样的疟色素颗粒,晚期滋养体的核质与核膜的增生,及其增生核膜的衍化;裂体增殖过程中先行的团块样核分裂及其随后的芽体等头端结构的形成.结论鬼形细胞技术有可能成为红内期疟原虫形态生物学及其免疫学和疫苗学研究的新手段.     

Research, practice and the Cochrane Collaboration.

The Cochrane Collaboration coordinates the efforts of health care professionals and researchers around the world to prepare, maintain and disseminate systematic reviews of health care research. In carrying out the first two tasks the collaboration employs a rigorous method for analysing the findings of randomized controlled trials; this method was developed in the 1980s and has undergone continual improvement since then. The collaborators believe their work will consolidate and make available the accumulated results of sound research assessing the effectiveness of health care interventions and thus steer health care professionals and consumers toward the right treatments and help guide research into new therapies. Since the collaboration began, in 1993, Cochrane centres have been set up in the British Isles, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and the United States, and many new Cochrane review groups have been registered. Canadian scientists have played an important role in the collaboration. They have prepared and maintained systematic reviews, hosted the collaboration's second annual colloquium and are currently in the vanguard of efforts to facilitate the dissemination of collaboration documents. Although the collaboration uses new modes of communication it has not abandoned traditional ones. Nor has it underestimated the work that remains to be done to bring review findings to the attention of health care providers. Early indications suggest, however, that the collaboration's basic message about the importance of evidence-based practice is getting through.