前言
论文结果描述的写作让人头疼，为啥？
论文是写给别人看的，作者必须想着怎样让读者看懂，而不是刁难读者。最近读了近期发表在 BMC Gastroenterology 上的一篇论文有感而发。
有兴趣的朋友可以跟我一起来理解一下这篇文章~
Background Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) results when the outfow of the hepatic vein (HV) is obstructed. BCS patients exhibiting an accessory HV (AHV) that is dilated but obstructed can achieve signifcant alleviation of liver congestion after undergoing AHV recanalization. This meta-analysis was developed to explore the clinical efcacy of AHV recanalization in patients with BCS.
Materials and methods PubMed, Embase, and Wanfang databases were searched for relevant studies published as of November 2022, and RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 were used for pooled endpoint analyses.
这句话本身没有什么问题，但有重大漏洞，纳入荟萃分析的标准没有交代，比如怎样的研究？临床试验？前瞻性队列？回顾性队列？个案系列个案报道？随访时间必须在多长以上？
Results Twelve total studies were identifed for analysis.Pooled primary clinical success, re-stenosis, 1- and 5-year primary patency, 1- and 5-year secondary patency, 1-year overall survival (OS), and 5-year OS rates of patients in these studies following AHV recanalization were 96%, 17%, 91%, 75%, 98%, 91%, 97%, and 96%, respectively. Patients also exhibited a signifcant reduction in AHV pressure after recanalization relative to preoperative levels (P<0.00001). Endpoints exhibiting signifcant heterogeneity among these studies included, AHV pressure (I2=95%), 1-year pri‑ mary patency (I2=51.2%), and 5-year primary patency (I2=62.4%). Relative to HV recanalization, AHV recanalization was related to a lower rate of re-stenosis (P=0.002) and longer primary patency (P<0.00001), but was not associated with any improvements in clinical success (P=0.88) or OS (P=0.29) relative to HV recanalization.
结果部分第一句话和前面方法部分一样的问题：12个研究，具体都是怎样的研究，12个都是前瞻队列，还是都是回顾性分析？总共多少病人？这些事情不写清楚，下面给出荟萃分析的结果，可信度如何，就根本无从判断。
结果部分第二句话前半段列明 primary clinical success, re‐stenosis, 1‐ and 5‐year primary patency, 1‐ and 5‐year secondary patency, 1‐year overall survival (OS), and 5‐year OS 总共八个结局指标，后半段给出了8个百分比，读起来极其困难。比如，5‐year secondary patency 具体是哪个百分比，您得一二三四五去数，第5个指标，下面8个数字里对应的是第5个。句子本身没错，但从可读性角度出发，应当把句子分开，慢慢交代：
The primary clinical success rate was 96%.The re-stenosis rate was 17%.The 1‐ and 5‐year primary patency rate was 91% and 75%, respectively.The 1‐ and 5‐year secondary patency rate was 98%, 91%, respectively.The 1‐ and 5-year overall survival rate was 97%, and 96%, respectively.
修改句子解析
第一句：The primary clinical success rate was 96%. 话说到这里，再通有不同的具体方法，球囊还是支架，你作者是否有义务在交代结局指标之前进行说明？
第二句：The re-stenosis rate was 17%.
这个出现一个新问题：re-stenosis是不是和随访时间有关？随访时间越长，再堵上的比例就会越高。所以，交代这个事情，必须加上随访，写成：Within a median follow-up of ?? years, the re-stenosis rate was 17%. 再有，17%这个比例，是不是应当有一个置信区间？
第三句：The 1‐ and 5‐year primary patency rate was 91% and 75%, respectively.
Primary patency 两个时间点的数据，可以放在一个句子里面。
结果部分第三句话：副肝静脉压力和手术前相比显著降低，具体是在什么时间？手术后一天，一个月，一年还是5年？降低了多少？只有一个p值，无法判断临床价值，也就不成其为结果。P值，小数点后4个零也非常怪异，不知道怎么想的。
结果部分最后一句话：这句话有点无厘头！！！
前面只说到副肝静脉再通，压根儿没有说起肝静脉再通，这里莫名其妙出现，怎么回事情？？？荟萃分析纳入的文献是对比副肝静脉再通和肝静脉再通的研究？如果是，是不是需要交代一下？另外一种可能：或许是副肝静脉再通有12篇论文，肝静脉再通是另外的一些论文？另外，副肝静脉再通和肝静脉再通分别来自不同的研究？还用，re‐stenosis 比例更低 primary patency 时间更长，只有p值，没有具体数字，不足为信。最后，什么叫“clinical success”？不说清楚定义，这句话就属于耍流氓。
转自“白话医学研究”微信公众号，本文仅作为学术交流分享，如有侵权，请联系本站删除！
