作者: C. Heneghan , R. Perera , D. Nunan , K. Mahtani , P. Gill
DOI: 10.1136/BMJ.E4797
关键词: Randomized controlled trial 、 Product (business) 、 Systematic review 、 Research design 、 Medicine 、 Clinical trial 、 MEDLINE 、 Evidence-based practice 、 Alternative medicine 、 Medical education
摘要: Carl Heneghan and colleagues take a critical look at the evidence used to back up claims that Lucozade enhances sporting performance Sports drinks manufacturers are keen emphasise their products supported by science, although they more reticent about details. As part of BMJ’ s analysis underpinning sports performance products, it asked supply details studies. Only one manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, complied. It provided us with comprehensive bibliography trials underpin its product for Lucozade—a carbohydrate containing drink.1 Other leading did not bibliographies, in absence systematic reviews we surmise methodological issues raised this article could apply all other drinks. Of list 176 studies, were able critically review 106 studies (101 clinical trials) dating from 1971 through 2012. We posters, supplements, theses, or unavailable articles (see linked data supplement). Clinical best study design have evaluate what effect “treatment”—in case drinks—will on performance. However, created equal,2 label randomised controlled trial is no guarantee will provide adequate useful evidence. turns out, if you based methods, 40 years research does seemingly add much, particularly when applying results general public. Below set out main problems identified together some examples. Only four included power calculation outset,3 4 5 6 very few discussed importance statistical power: only study, seven moderately trained subjects, reported …