Response to: systematic review of dietary, nutritional, and physical activity interventions for the prevention of prostate cancer progression and mortality by Hackshaw-McGeagh and Colleagues.
Response to: systematic review of dietary, nutritional, and physical activity interventions for the prevention of prostate cancer progression and mortality by Hackshaw-McGeagh and Colleagues.
复制标题
回应：Hackshaw-McGeagh 及其同事对预防前列腺癌进展和死亡率的饮食、营养和身体活动干预措施进行了系统回顾。
DOI：
10.1007/s10552-017-0911-1
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Demark-Wahnefried,Wendy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Demark-Wahnefried,Wendy
我们对Hackshaw-McGeagh等人的系统性综述表示赞赏。[1]饮食，营养和身体活动干预预防前列腺癌进展和死亡率。该文件作出了显着的贡献，文献和是彻底的，精心设计，写得很好。然而，有一个更正，我们希望提请作者注意。尽管根据绝大多数标准，我们的随机对照试验（RCT）被认为对研究参与者或工作人员无效。虽然我们确实无法使研究参与者对低脂饮食或亚麻籽补充剂（NIH资助的161名等待乳房切除术的男性术前试验中的两种实验条件）设盲，但我们的研究人员确实是设盲的[2，3]。本试验的主要终点是肿瘤的增殖率，两名研究病理学家（各自对组分配不知情）对此进行了独立评估。此外，所有的生物化学测定，无论是前列腺特异性抗原、睾酮、性激素结合球蛋白、胰岛素样生长因子（IGF）-1、IGF结合蛋白-3、c-反应蛋白或总胆固醇和LDL-胆固醇的血清水平，还是前列腺组织或红细胞膜的脂质组成，或尿液和精液木酚素测定均由对分组不知情的实验室人员进行。因此，虽然我们的调查是单盲的，并且会受到一些偏见的影响，但威胁相对较小。再次，我们感谢这篇做得很好的系统综述，但认为我们需要提请作者和读者注意这种错误分类。
We applaud the systematic review of Hackshaw-McGeagh et al.[1] on dietary, nutritional, and physical activity interventions for the prevention of prostate cancer progression and mortality. The paper makes a notable contribution to the literature and is thorough, well designed, and well written. However, there is one correction that we would like to bring to the attention of the authors. Though rated highly according to the vast majority of criteria, our randomized controlled trial (RCT) was cited as being ineffectively blinded either with respect to study participants or personnel. While true that we were unable to blind our study participants to either the low fat diet or flaxseed supplementation, the two experimental conditions in our NIH-funded presurgical trial among 161 men who were awaiting prostatectomy, our study staff were indeed blinded [2, 3]. The primary endpoint for this trial was proliferation rate in the tumor, for which the two study pathologists, each blinded to arm assignment, rendered independent assessments. Moreover, all biochemical assays, whether for serum levels of prostate specific antigen, testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin, insulinlike growth factor (IGF)-1, IGF binding protein-3, c-reactive protein, or total and LDL-cholesterol, or for the lipid composition of prostatic tissue or erythrocyte membranes, or the urinary and seminal fluid lignans were all performed by laboratory personnel who were blinded with regard to arm assignment. Thus, while ours is a single-blinded investigation and is subject to some bias, the threat is relatively small. Again, we appreciate this well done systematic review, but thought we needed to bring this misclassification to the attention of both the authors and the readers.