一分證據講一分話
以下有幾篇論文/結論
A. Title: Construct Validity of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure in Patients With Tendon Injury and Dupuytren Disease
Conclusions: The results support our hypotheses and, thus, the construct validity of the COPM in patients with post-surgery hand conditions.
[
Note: 以下內容是我看到3份意見後，再提出的各任看法。其他 [] 內容皆然。 結論提到 "the results"也就是此研究的結果是必要的，然而適用對樣竟
誇大為post-surgery hand conditions]
B. Title: Investigating the Validity of the Environmental Framework Underlying the Original and Modified Dynamic Gait Index.
Conclusions: Support for the environmental framework underlying the mDGI extends its usefulness as a clinical measure of functional mobility by providing a rationale for interpretation of scores that can be used to direct treatment and infer change in mobility function.
[結論冗長難懂]
C. Title: Development and Validity of the Questionnaire of Patients' Experiences in Post-Acute Outpatient Physical Therapy Settings (PEPAP-Q)
Conclusions: The PEPAP-Q
is a reliable test-retest and the scales have internal consistency and convergent and discriminant validity. All the scales
are distinct and unidimensional.
[is/are 已很誇大，結論又未提研究對象]
D. Title: Reproducibility and Validity of the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) Questionnaire in Patients After Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Conclusions: Further study with a larger sample size is necessary to obtain precise reliability and validity estimates. Nevertheless, inadequate agreement calls into question the PASE questionnaire's ability to assess the physical activity level of patients after THA surgery.
[結論很保留，也是很適當，不過這樣結果一般不易被接受刊登，作者的運氣相當好]
E. Title: Reliability and validity of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in people with subacute stroke.
Conclusions: The BESTest
is reliable, valid, sensitive, and specific in assessing balance in people with subacute stroke across all levels of functional disability.
[is 已很誇大，研究對象 across all levels of functional disability 有點誇大]
F. Title: Validity and reliability of the community balance and mobility scale in individuals with knee osteoarthritis
Conclusions: The CB&M
displayed moderate convergent validity, excellent known-groups validity, and high test-retest reliability. The CB&M
can be used as a valid and reliable tool to assess dynamic balance and mobility deficits in people with knee OA.
[can be used as a valid and reliable tool 還是有點誇大，因為作者驗證的信效度類別有限]
您覺得哪一篇之結論寫得最合宜 (精準不誇大)
您覺得哪一篇之結論寫得最不合宜 (誇大)
請惠賜意見。我的評論將等待至少3分意見之後，再提出。
我的看法: D 最合宜 [但不易模仿]。C 最誇大，E次之。歡迎討論。
hints: 時態/寫法 & 有無引述/或限於研究結果
以上論文皆來自於一個著名期刊(2014年)，但水準不齊，這也造成讀者/研究生/新進研究人員的困惑。
