你们吃过多少种呢？
多数在Shopee/Lazada都能买到~

第十名：寿桃牌冬阴功拉面
✅Shopee有卖：https://shp.ee/8irdwgc （刀削面版本）

第九名：台湾老妈拌面
✅Shopee有卖：https://shp.ee/y4bfejj
✅Lazada有卖：https://invol.co/cl3ohyc

第八名：Prima Taste咖喱拉面
✅Shopee有卖：https://shp.ee/djnj6mv
✅Lazada有卖：https://invol.co/cl3oi0b

第七名：Red Chef 青酸辣汤面
✅Shopee有卖：https://shp.ee/ti8add3
✅Lazada有卖：https://invol.co/cl3oi6c

第六名：三养辣炒年糕火鸡面
✅Shopee有卖：https://shp.ee/6jdwrp9
✅Lazada有卖：https://invol.co/cl3oi8b

第五名：Red Chef樱花虾辣汤面
✅Shopee有卖：https://shp.ee/w6n62cb
✅Lazada有卖：https://invol.co/cl3oi94

第四名：老饕半筋半肉牛肉面
Shopee/Lazada：暂无

第三名：MyKuali槟城白咖喱面
✅Shopee有卖：https://shp.ee/6avjw44
✅Lazada有卖：https://invol.co/cl3oiij

第二名：虾米香干捞面
Shopee/Lazada：暂无

第一名：Prima Taste叻沙全麦拉面
✅Shopee有卖：https://shp.ee/djnj6mv

Ramen Rater食评：https://www.theramenrater.com/2021/04/19/the-ramen-raters-top-ten-instant-noodles-of-all-time-2021-edition/

【2020年评选十大即食面】🍜🍜
专门试吃世界各国多个品牌的The Ramen Raters昨天刚刚评选了2020年，十大即食面!! 马来西亚 & 新加坡势均力敌，各有3种即食面上榜!!😍

大部分都可以在Lazada & Shopee买到，或许大家可以买一些来try看，是不是犹如这拉面之神说的那么好吃!!

第一名：新加坡
Prima Taste Singapore Wholegrain Laksa La Mian
✅Lazada购买（4包）：https://invol.co/clmvii

第二名：马来西亚
樱花虾汤米粉 Red Chef Spicy Sakura Prawn Soup Rice Vermicelli & Noodles (New Recipe)
✅Lazada购买（12包）：https://invol.co/clmvix

第三名：韩国
Samyang Foods Carbo Buldak Topokki
✅Lazada购买（2019版本）：https://invol.co/clmvj2

第四名：马来西亚
Red Chef Green Tom Yum Soup Noodles (New Formulation Dec 2019)
✅Lazada购买：https://invol.co/clmvj3

第五名：台湾
阿舍食堂究浓红烧牛肉面 A-Sha Gourmet Braised Beef Noodle Soup

第六名：新加坡
Prima Taste Singapore Curry Wholegrain La Mian
✅Lazada购买：https://invol.co/clmvji

第七名：台湾
台湾老妈拌面 Mom’s Dry Noodle Dan Dan Noodle
✅Lazada购买：https://invol.co/clmvjo

第八名：香港
寿桃牌冬阴功 Sau Tao Tom Yum Kung Flavour Ramen

第九名：马来西亚
鱼头炉面 MyKuali White Fish Broth Noodle

第十名：新加坡
Prima Taste Singapore Black Pepper Crab Flavoured La Mian

他也有提到为何没有日本即食面，大家可以点击这里参考完整的评鉴：
https://www.theramenrater.com/2020/04/20/top-ten-2020/?fbclid=IwAR2_o1S6qxLRr7WoGiDubB-gicdlFiWxU6qrjK4lfltJR_uracgGMH61BOI

Glasgow Coma Scale

The reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale: a systematic review.

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), introduced in 1974, was the first grading scale to offer an objective assessment of the consciousness of patients. The assessment of motor, verbal and eye responses of the GCS characterizes the level of consciousness. The picture provided by these responses enables comparison both between patients and of changes in patients over time that crucially guides management. The three components can be scored separately or combined in a sum score, ranging from 3 to 15. The sum score was initially used in research, but later also in clinical settings, even though summation of the three components incurs loss of information. Both the GCS and the sum score are used in the intensive care unit (ICU) in a broad spectrum of patients with reduced level of consciousness and the sum score is integrated in several ICU classification systems. An approximately linear relationship exists between decreasing sum scores and increasing mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the motor component is a strong predictor of poor outcome in moderate/severe TBI.
Reliable scoring is fundamental to the practical utility of the GCS. Conceptually, reliability is the degree to which an instrument is free from measurement error. It has an external component (i.e. inter-rater reliability) which assesses the same subjects by different raters, and an internal component (i.e. intra-rater and test–retest reliability), which reflects the degree to which the scale yields identical results on different occasions and over time, assuming stable conditions. Reliability is, however, not an inherent property of a test, but a characteristic of the scores obtained when applying the test. Estimates of reliability are influenced by test properties, rater characteristics, study settings, heterogeneity of subjects and how subjects are treated, e.g. by intubation and sedation. It is important to identify factors that are potentially modifiable in order to improve the applicability of the GCS.
The reliability of the GCS has been examined in many studies, using a variety of measures, but remains an area of some controversy. Various reports, specifically in the field of intensive care and emergency medicine, have criticized the GCS and questioned its general applicability. Many assumptions are, however, based on limited evidence and mainly reflect personal opinions. No comprehensive systematic review on the reliability of the GCS and the factors that affect its reliability has been conducted since 1996. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the reliability of the GCS and the sum score, to identify influencing factors and to formulate recommendations for optimizing its reliability.

http://bit.ly/1PK7wJp