醫學論文翻譯
原文：
Results
Based on the information in the title and abstract, 29 papers were identified as being potentially relevant for this systematic review. A total of 20 articles did not meet the criteria and were excluded from further analysis. Of these, aerobic capacity was not measured in 18 articles. One study did not use random allocation of subjects. Carr and Jones did not have a true control group which did not undergo aerobic exercise training. In their study, one group underwent aerobic exercise training whereas another group underwent aerobic and strength training, making it impossible to evaluate the effects of aerobic training. A total of nine articles fulfilled all criteria and were selected for this review. 66 Of these, two reported duplicate results: da Cunha Filho et al .used the same participants as da Cunha et al . but used different outcome measures. Another article64 was a six-month follow-up report of Katz-Leurer et al . In summary, a total of nine articles (seven RCTs) were selected for this systematic review. The main characteristics of each selected study are described in Table 1.
譯文：
結果
依據論文標題和摘要內容的資訊，有29篇報告經判定可能跟本系統評估相關。共有20篇論文未符合標準，而自分析作業中排除。在這些論文中，有18篇報告未進行好氧特性的測定。有1篇研究未使用受測物的隨機分配作業。Carr和 Jones未確實建立好氧測定訓練的相關控制組。在其研究中，有1個群組進行好氧測定訓練，而另外1組則進行好氧性和耐力測定訓練，而無法評估好氧測定訓練的效果。共有9篇論文符合所有標準，選用於本評估作業。在這些論文中，有兩篇出現重複的研究結果，da Cunha Filho 等人使用跟da Cunha等人相同的實驗參與者，但使用不同的研究結果測量方法。另11篇論文則由Katz-Leurer等人進行6個月的追蹤研究。總之，共有9篇論文(7篇RCT)選用於本系統評估中，各選用於研究報告的主要特性，說明如表1。
字體：小 中 大
