当前位置：
X-MOL 学术
›
Environ. Sci. Technol.
›
论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Comment on “Pulmonary Benefits of Intervention with Air Cleaner among Schoolchildren in Beijing: A Randomized Double-Blind Crossover Study”
Environmental Science & Technology ( IF 11.4 ) Pub Date : 2022-08-09 , DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c04648 Jeremy Sea Meng Ang, Zhaoqing Lyu, Kouji H. Harada
Environmental Science & Technology ( IF 11.4 ) Pub Date : 2022-08-09 , DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c04648 Jeremy Sea Meng Ang, Zhaoqing Lyu, Kouji H. Harada
We are delighted to read the article by Yang et al. in Environmental Science & Technology. (1) The authors conducted a randomized double-blind crossover study using air cleaners to evaluate the relationship between time-weighted particulate matter (PM) concentrations and 27 respiratory system biomarkers in Beijing, China. The study found that the intervention affected some biomarkers such as FeNO. However, we have concerns about the quality of reporting of this article as randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs are often assigned the highest level of evidence. But incomplete, selective, and inconsistent reporting may impair the study’s validity. (2) We evaluated the quality of reporting of an RCT in this article in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for randomized crossover trials. (3) The CONSORT statement included a 22-item checklist as a minimum set of recommendations for reporting RCTs. We identified six items that did not meet the requirements, as shown in Table 1. Among the six items, we address two important points. The authors did not describe the randomization process and the participant flow through each stage of the trial. If the process caused selection bias and potential systematic differences between groups, it would affect the validity of the results. It may also increase the predictability of the intervention, for example, differences in students’ or interventionists’ behaviors. Second, the lack of RCT registration affects the validity of this trial. The registration of all interventional trials is considered an important scientific responsibility as it can prevent selective reporting of outcomes and help to identify changes in the protocol during the study process. (4) Although it is not common that scientific journals on environmental sciences require the submission of a CONSORT checklist, authors of RCTs should use the checklist because inadequate information may cause potential biases in the estimation of intervention effects. We hope that Yang et al. will provide additional information on these items and also the Environmental Science & Technology will recommend the use of the checklist. This article references 4 other publications. This article has not yet been cited by other publications. This article references 4 other publications.
更新日期：2022-08-09
京公网安备 11010802027423号