图片
会员登录
登录账号:
登录密码:
验 证 码:
您好,您已登录
您有条新到站内短信
会员中心 退出登录
图片
点评分类
点评搜索
点评详情
发布于:2018-12-7 00:19:26  访问:9 次 回复:0 篇
版主管理 | 推荐 | 删除 | 删除并扣分
At low danger ofBlinding of outcome assessmentWe judged all 13 research that
Amongst the 65 studies that reported consumption outcomes, we judged the risk of bias to become high within this domain in a single study (Ahn 2010). on behalf of the Cochrane Collaboration.bias within this domain since details and instructions appeared to become standardised among comparison groups.Effects of interventionsSee: Summary of findings for the principle comparison Food: Bigger versus smaller-sized portions, packages or tableware for altering quantity consumed or chosen; Summary of findings two Alcohol: Larger versus smaller-sized portions, packages or tableware for changing quantity consumed or chosen; Summary of findings three Tobacco: Longer versus shorter cigarettes for altering quantity consumed or selected; Summary of findings 4 Meals: Shorter, wider versus taller, narrower glasses or plastic bottles (shape) for altering quantity of non-alcoholic beverages consumed or selected This section presents the outcomes of our statistical analyses of outcome information collected from included research. Outcomes of meta-analyses are presented as standardised imply variations (SMDs) with 95 self-confidence intervals (CIs). A rule of thumb for interpreting these impact sizes (SMDs) is as follows: 0.2 represents a little effect, 0.5 a moderate effect and 0.8 a sizable impact (Cohen 1988; Sch emann 2011). On the other hand, it truly is perhaps much more intuitive to interpret SMDs oncethey have been re-expressed applying a familiar metric (Sch emann 2011). Figure four is intended as an illustrative guide to assist readers interpret the estimated impact sizes (SMDs) presented beneath within this section.At low danger ofBlinding of outcome assessmentWe judged all 13 studies that reported choice outcomes to become at low risk of bias within this domain (DiSantis 2013; Fisher 2003; Fisher 2013; Koh 2009; van Kleef 2012; Wansink 1996a (S1); Wansink 1996b (S2); Wansink 1996c (S4); Wansink 2003 (S1); Wansink 2003 (S2); Wansink 2005d; Wansink 2006; Wansink 2011a (S4)). Among the 65 research that reported consumption outcomes, we judged the threat of bias to become higher in this domain in a single study (Ahn 2010). Within this study, we regarded it possible that the outcome measurement may have been influenced by a lack of blinding, mainly because participants have been instructed to keep dietary records of their own intake. We judged two other studies to become at unclear threat of bias resulting from insufficient facts (Jeffery 2007; Stroebele 2009). We judged the remaining 62 research to be at low danger of bias.Incomplete outcome information Among the 13 research that reported choice outcomes, we judged two to become at higher threat of bias for this domain (Fisher 2003; Fisher 2013), with all the remaining 11 studies judged to become at low risk of bias. From the 65 research that reported consumption outcomes, we judged eight to become at higher threat of bias (Coelho do Vale 2008 (S2); Fisher 2003; Fisher 2007c; Fisher 2013; Leahy 2008; Looney 2011; Marchiori 2011; Mathias 2012), with 4 research assessed as at unclear risk of bias (Mishra 2012 (S1); Mishra 2012 (S2); Rolls 2007a; Russell 1980). We judged the remaining 53 research as at low threat of bias. We judged research to become at high risk of bias for this domain if 10 of participants‘ information had been excluded from the evaluation as a result of low (or zero) levels of choice or consumption, or due to getting outliers.Portion, package or tableware size for altering choice and consumption of meals, alcohol and tobacco (Critique) Copyright 2015 The Authors.
共0篇回复 每页10篇 页次:1/1
共0篇回复 每页10篇 页次:1/1
我要回复
回复内容
验 证 码
看不清?更换一张
匿名发表 
图片
脚注信息
版权所有 Copyright(C)2009-2010 杭州市某某茶叶贸易有限公司