Objectives To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge.目标，以确定是否降落伞是有效地防止重大创伤有关的引力的挑战。

A very interesting article providing reality check on blind dependence of the medical community today on double blind, randomized, placebo controlled, crossover trials.一个很有趣的文章提供了现实检查就盲目的依赖，医学界今天就双盲，随机，安慰剂控制的，交叉的审判。 Often you see them getting religious over evidence based therapy disregarding observation based therapy completely.往往你看到他们获得宗教超过循证治疗无视观察治疗，完全基于。

They concluded:他们的结论是：
“Only two options exist. “只有两个选择存在。 The first is that we accept that, under exceptional circumstances, common sense might be applied when considering the potential risks and benefits of interventions.第一，我们承认，在特殊情况下，普通常识时可能适用的考虑的潜在风险和益处的干预措施。 The second is that we continue our quest for the holy grail of exclusively evidence based interventions and preclude parachute use outside the context of a properly conducted trial.二是我们继续追求的圣杯专门的证据为基础的干预和排除降落伞以外地方使用的背景下妥善进行审判。 The dependency we have created in our population may make recruitment of the unenlightened masses to such a trial difficult.有受扶养人，我们创造了在我们的人口可能会使招聘的unenlightened群众对这种审判的困难。 If so, we feel assured that those who advocate evidence based medicine and criticise use of interventions that lack an evidence base will not hesitate to demonstrate their commitment by volunteering for a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial.”如果是这样，我们放心，那些谁主张循证医学与批评使用的干预缺乏证据基础，将毫不犹疑地展示他们的承诺，志愿为双盲，随机，安慰剂对照，交叉试验“ 。

Dr. Mike Thomas aptly commented:博士迈克托马斯正好评论说：

” Editor “编辑

Smith et al (1) are right to highlight the inadequate evidence-base to the use of parachutes, but their calls for the greater use of the ill-defined and unquantifiable property ‘common-sense’ in research is unscientific and needs to be challenged.史密斯等人（ 1 ）正确地强调了证据不足-基地使用降落伞，但他们的呼吁更广泛使用虐待的界定和量化的财产'共同意识'的研究是不科学的，必须加以质疑。 Have the authors considered the social and economic consequences of their recommendations?有作者认为，社会和经济后果，他们的建议呢？ Are they unaware of the comfortable and profitable industry that has arisen around ‘evidence- based’ systematic reviews of controlled trials?他们不知道该和舒适的有利可图的产业，出现了周围的'以证据为基础的'系统的审查，控制审判？ The measures they suggest may lead to widespread economic and intellectual redundancy, and force large numbers of academics to leave behind old certainties and start thinking for themselves.的措施，他们建议，可能导致广泛的经济和智力冗余，并迫使大批学者留下的旧的确定性，并开始思考为自己。 This could have dangerous consequences such as forcing original thought and research, and these need careful monitoring.这可能有危险的后果，如迫使原来的思考和研究，这些都需要仔细监测。 “