評論
打印
The placebo group developed 30 cases over a 3-year period, about 10 cases per year
安慰劑組3年內出現了30例，大約每年10例
The vitamin D treated group developed only 9 cases
而維生素D服用組只有9例
That's a striking difference and highly statistically significant
差異明顯，在統計學上有非常顯著的意義
The problem with this kind of effect is that
這類現象的問題在于
unless you're in a study of this where you were carefully following the subjects from month to month and visit to visit
如果不是專門研究、仔細跟蹤被試者，月復一月，一次又一次
you never would notice this, because the patients who don't get influenza don't come back to the doctor
是注意不到這個的，因為沒有患流感的人是不會回頭看醫生的
I mean such obvious thing could make sense when you think about it that you wonder why didn't I think about that
想想這顯然是說得通的
Much more recently, published just this year, this interesting study of Japanese school children
更近的研究，這是今年發表的關于日本學齡兒童的有趣研究
that was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
發表于美國臨床營養學雜志
This is the relative risk of serologically proved influenza
這是血清上證明患流感的相對風險
with a relative risk of any individuals who were assigned to placebo being assigned one point zero
安慰劑服用者的相對風險設為1.0
Those who got vitamin D a very substantial reduction nearly 50% and those who had no other supplemental vitamin D even greater reduction
維生素D服用者顯著減少近50%，而維生素D(沒有其它補充)者減少更多
So clearly a protective effect in the double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial under the circumstances
顯然，雙盲安慰劑對照隨機試驗顯示了這種保護效果
One more piece of level one evidence showing protection
又一個一級證據證明了這個效果
