我不明白为什么这个 3 页长表上的垂直线无法断开。抱歉代码太长：
\documentclass[12pt,twoside,openright]{book}
\usepackage[a4paper,headheight=15pt,left=25mm,top=25mm,bottom=25mm,right=25mm]{geometry}
\usepackage{array} % for tables
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{arydshln}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{geometry}
\begin{document}
\small
\begin{longtable}{p{0.75cm} | p{0.5cm} | p{5cm} | p{7.25cm}}
\caption{\label{scheme} The assessment scheme}\\
\hline\hline
\textbf{Area} & \textbf{No} & \textbf{Question} & \textbf{Comment} \\
\hline
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{4}{c}%
{\tablename\ \thetable\ -- \textit{The assessment scheme - Continued}} \\
\hline\hline
\textbf{Area} & \textbf{No} & \textbf{Question} & \textbf{Comment} \\
\hline
\endhead
\hline \multicolumn{4}{r}{\textit{Continued on next page}} \\
\endfoot
\hline\hline
\endlastfoot
\parbox[t]{2mm}{\multirow{31}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\textbf{General introduction}}}} & 1 & \textit{Does the research question identify the outcome(s) of interest?} & A well-formulated question clearly identifies the type of effects the study seeks out to investigate. This clearly informs the reader about the aim of the study. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 2 & \textit{Does the research question identify the treatment alternatives being compared?} & The research question should identify the alternative treatment(s) being compared. It will inform the reader about the relevant sphere of the health services studied. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 3 & \textit{Are the important stakeholders identified?} & Health systems vary across countries. One factor that causes this variation is the incorporation of different stakeholders. The reference to the major stakeholders
in the study context makes the reader aware of a key institutional characteristic of the health system under scrutiny. Important stakeholders include patients, health service providers, institutes, insurance companies, municipalities and governments. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 4 & \textit{Is the study context clearly defined?} & The motivation for and the background of the study should be understood by the reader. This includes the motivation for implementing and testing HBR. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 5 & \textit{Are the alternatives being compared clearly described?} & Detailed descriptions of the treatment alternatives will enable the reader to comprehend the typical service profiles provided. The natural baseline for HBR is ‘usual care’ which will vary across individuals, and therefore cannot be described in every case. We expect that the authors provide a clear description of the most common service provided to the reference group. \\ \cline{1-4}
& 6 & \textit{Are methods for evaluating health states and other benefits described?} & The readers should be able to understand all methods used for evaluation. Authors should not assume that every reader is familiar with all existing instruments for measuring health. It is therefore essential that a short description of each instrument is provided. \\ \cline{2-4}
&7 & \textit{Are the necessary scales for the methods used described?} & A description of an evaluation method is incomplete without information about the scales of the methods. Only a reader who knows the scaling will be able to fully comprehend and appreciate the results of the study. \\ \cline{2-4}
\parbox[t]{2mm}{\multirow{16}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\textbf{Data sampling and description}}}} & 8 & \textit{Is the sampling procedure clearly described?} & The sampling procedure should be described in detail. If different instruments where used, then the interview setting should be described. Are data extracted from different databases, then the content of each source should be described. Authors should provide details of the dataset used and inform the reader on aspects such as timeframe, frequency, number of observations etc. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 9 & \textit{Does the paper provide a clear data description?} & All empirical economic papers should provide a table of descriptive statistics and describe the data based on the table. Providing a table of baseline descriptive statistics without describing data and findings is not sufficient. \\ \cline{1-4}
\parbox[t]{2mm}{\multirow{24}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\textbf{Statistics}}}}& 10 & \textit{Is the choice of statistical methods used discussed and justified?} & Statistical models are based on assumptions, that implies that they have strengths and weaknesses. Most of these models are designed for different settings and types of data. As the choice of statistical methods could have a direct influence on the results, authors should explain their choice of methods based on the sampling procedure and their research setting. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 11 & \textit{Are assumptions underlying statistical methods used discussed and addressed explicitly?} & Typically, the operational characteristics of statistical methods are known conditional on a set of assumptions being fulfilled. A violation of such assumptions might seriously affect statistical validity. Ramifications in the context of the study should be discussed and addressed whenever possible. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 12 & \textit{Are alternative statistical estimators discussed?} & The researchers should carefully motivate the statistical estimators used. Notably they should reflect the main drawbacks of potential alternative estimators in the specific research setting. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 13 & \textit{Is the data analytical part of the study replicable?} & Replicability is regarded as an important requirement for studies published in the field of economics. Given the dataset and the methodical description in the paper, an independent researcher should be able to replicate the results. \\ \cline{1-4}
\parbox[t]{2mm}{\multirow{21}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\textbf{External validity}}}}& 14 & \textit{Has the study a large degree of external validity?} & External validity is essential for a policy-maker who is considering the implementation of HBR. Several studies are not designed for providing information beyond their study setting. Studies with low degree of external validity should not be the basis of a policy-makers’ decision. Studies lacking external validity may still be interesting in terms of learning about and developing HBR. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 15 & \textit{Is the study grounded in the relevant theory?} & Research procedures are often designed to reveal treatment efficacy rather than unsheathe the causes leading to the efficacy of a treatment. Deaton (2010) argues that RCTs focusing on “whether”, are not informative about the mechanisms that cause a treatment to work. He suggests that learning about theory, or mechanisms, requires that the investigation should be targeted towards that theory. Studies, RCTs or non-experimental, that are not theoretically grounded are unlikely to provide any external validity. \\
\end{longtable}
\normalsize
\end{document}
答案1
包裹芳基化物显然与长桌并干扰。如果你删除该包，长桌将正确打破表格。
如果你真的需要芳基化物，你必须帮助长桌使用手动分页符。如果您\pagebreak在第 7 行和第 13 行之后发出 -command（IE表格中的垂直线会消失。这也是避免表格中出现垂直线的另一个原因。
\documentclass[12pt,twoside,openright]{book}
\usepackage[a4paper,headheight=15pt,left=25mm,top=25mm,bottom=25mm,right=25mm]{geometry}
\usepackage{array} % for tables
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{arydshln} %% <-- This is the sinner
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage{geometry}
\begin{document}
\small
\begin{longtable}{p{0.95cm} | p{0.6cm} | p{5cm} | p{7cm}}
\caption{\label{scheme} The assessment scheme}\\
\hline\hline
\textbf{Area} & \textbf{No} & \textbf{Question} & \textbf{Comment} \\
\hline
\endfirsthead
\multicolumn{4}{c}%
{\tablename\ \thetable\ -- \textit{The assessment scheme - Continued}} \\
\hline\hline
\textbf{Area} & \textbf{No} & \textbf{Question} & \textbf{Comment} \\
\hline
\endhead
\hline \multicolumn{4}{r}{\textit{Continued on next page}} \\
\endfoot
\hline\hline
\endlastfoot
\parbox[t]{2mm}{\multirow{31}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\textbf{General introduction}}}}
& 1 & \textit{Does the research question identify the outcome(s) of interest?} & A well-formulated question clearly identifies the type of effects the study seeks out to investigate. This clearly informs the reader about the aim of the study. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 2 & \textit{Does the research question identify the treatment alternatives being compared?} & The research question should identify the alternative treatment(s) being compared. It will inform the reader about the relevant sphere of the health services studied. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 3 & \textit{Are the important stakeholders identified?} & Health systems vary across countries. One factor that causes this variation is the incorporation of different stakeholders. The reference to the major stakeholders in the study context makes the reader aware of a key institutional characteristic of the health system under scrutiny. Important stakeholders include patients, health service providers, institutes, insurance companies, municipalities and governments. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 4 & \textit{Is the study context clearly defined?} & The motivation for and the background of the study should be understood by the reader. This includes the motivation for implementing and testing HBR. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 5 & \textit{Are the alternatives being compared clearly described?} & Detailed descriptions of the treatment alternatives will enable the reader to comprehend the typical service profiles provided. The natural baseline for HBR is ‘usual care’ which will vary across individuals, and therefore cannot be described in every case. We expect that the authors provide a clear description of the most common service provided to the reference group. \\ \cline{1-4}
& 6 & \textit{Are methods for evaluating health states and other benefits described?} & The readers should be able to understand all methods used for evaluation. Authors should not assume that every reader is familiar with all existing instruments for measuring health. It is therefore essential that a short description of each instrument is provided. \\ \cline{2-4}
&7 & \textit{Are the necessary scales for the methods used described?} & A description of an evaluation method is incomplete without information about the scales of the methods. Only a reader who knows the scaling will be able to fully comprehend and appreciate the results of the study. \\ \cline{2-4}
\pagebreak %% <--- You need this pagebreak if you laod `arydshln`
\parbox[t]{2mm}{\multirow{16}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\textbf{Data sampling and description}}}}
& 8 & \textit{Is the sampling procedure clearly described?} & The sampling procedure should be described in detail. If different instruments where used, then the interview setting should be described. Are data extracted from different databases, then the content of each source should be described. Authors should provide details of the dataset used and inform the reader on aspects such as timeframe, frequency, number of observations etc. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 9 & \textit{Does the paper provide a clear data description?} & All empirical economic papers should provide a table of descriptive statistics and describe the data based on the table. Providing a table of baseline descriptive statistics without describing data and findings is not sufficient. \\ \cline{1-4}
\parbox[t]{2mm}{\multirow{24}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\textbf{Statistics}}}}
& 10 & \textit{Is the choice of statistical methods used discussed and justified?} & Statistical models are based on assumptions, that implies that they have strengths and weaknesses. Most of these models are designed for different settings and types of data. As the choice of statistical methods could have a direct influence on the results, authors should explain their choice of methods based on the sampling procedure and their research setting. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 11 & \textit{Are assumptions underlying statistical methods used discussed and addressed explicitly?} & Typically, the operational characteristics of statistical methods are known conditional on a set of assumptions being fulfilled. A violation of such assumptions might seriously affect statistical validity. Ramifications in the context of the study should be discussed and addressed whenever possible. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 12 & \textit{Are alternative statistical estimators discussed?} & The researchers should carefully motivate the statistical estimators used. Notably they should reflect the main drawbacks of potential alternative estimators in the specific research setting. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 13 & \textit{Is the data analytical part of the study replicable?} & Replicability is regarded as an important requirement for studies published in the field of economics. Given the dataset and the methodical description in the paper, an independent researcher should be able to replicate the results. \\ \cline{1-4}
\pagebreak \pagebreak %% <--- You need this pagebreak if you laod `arydshln`
\parbox[t]{2mm}{\multirow{21}{*}{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{\textbf{External validity}}}}
& 14 & \textit{Has the study a large degree of external validity?} & External validity is essential for a policy-maker who is considering the implementation of HBR. Several studies are not designed for providing information beyond their study setting. Studies with low degree of external validity should not be the basis of a policy-makers’ decision. Studies lacking external validity may still be interesting in terms of learning about and developing HBR. \\ \cline{2-4}
& 15 & \textit{Is the study grounded in the relevant theory?} & Research procedures are often designed to reveal treatment efficacy rather than unsheathe the causes leading to the efficacy of a treatment. Deaton (2010) argues that RCTs focusing on “whether”, are not informative about the mechanisms that cause a treatment to work. He suggests that learning about theory, or mechanisms, requires that the investigation should be targeted towards that theory. Studies, RCTs or non-experimental, that are not theoretically grounded are unlikely to provide any external validity. \\
\end{longtable}
\normalsize
\end{document}