高级检索
黄佩瑶, 杨景丽, 黄文雅, 柳念, 丁婕, 包凯芳, 陈晓亮, 程宁, 郑山, 白亚娜. “一带一路”国家前瞻性自然人群队列研究现状及其与荷兰队列对比分析[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2020, 36(12): 1759-1762. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1125857
引用本文: 黄佩瑶, 杨景丽, 黄文雅, 柳念, 丁婕, 包凯芳, 陈晓亮, 程宁, 郑山, 白亚娜. “一带一路”国家前瞻性自然人群队列研究现状及其与荷兰队列对比分析[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2020, 36(12): 1759-1762. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1125857
HUANG Pei-yao, YANG Jing-li, HUANG Wen-ya, . Profiles of natural population cohort studies in the Belt and Road Initiative countries and their comparison with those in the Netherlands[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2020, 36(12): 1759-1762. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1125857
Citation: HUANG Pei-yao, YANG Jing-li, HUANG Wen-ya, . Profiles of natural population cohort studies in the Belt and Road Initiative countries and their comparison with those in the Netherlands[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2020, 36(12): 1759-1762. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws1125857

“一带一路”国家前瞻性自然人群队列研究现状及其与荷兰队列对比分析

Profiles of natural population cohort studies in the Belt and Road Initiative countries and their comparison with those in the Netherlands

  • 摘要:
      目的  了解“一带一路”沿线中亚、南亚、独联体国家前瞻性自然人群队列研究的建立和发展情况,与荷兰队列进行比较,为今后“一带一路”国家的队列研究建设提供参考依据。
      方法  收集PubMed数据库中中亚、南亚、独联体等20个国家自数据库收录起始日期至2019年3月1日发表文献中的队列研究,经过2次筛选后对选定的队列进行二次检索,获取队列关键信息,分析中亚、南亚、独联体“一带一路”国家前瞻性自然人群队列的建设与发展情况,并与荷兰队列进行对比分析。
      结果  中亚、南亚、独联体20个国家共有211项研究人群 ≥ 1 000人的队列研究,其中,国家内队列研究164项(77.73 %),国际多中心队列研究47项(22.27 %)。经二次检索后选定的“一带一路”国家的6项前瞻性自然人群队列研究与荷兰的9项前瞻性自然人群队列研究进行对比分析,结果显示,在数量上,“一带一路”国家的2项队列研究为单一国家队列,荷兰的9项队列研究均为单一国家队列;在规模上,“一带一路”国家的2项队列研究对象 > 100 000人,荷兰的2项队列研究对象 > 100 000人;在建立时间上,“一带一路”国家建立最早的2项队列研究均建立于20世纪90年代初期,荷兰建立最早的3项队列研究均建立于20世纪80年代;在产出文章上,“一带一路”国家产出文章数量最多的队列研究文章发表数为400篇,荷兰产出文章数量最多的队列研究文章发表数为1 500篇。
      结论  相对于荷兰而言,“一带一路”沿线中亚、南亚、独联体国家的前瞻性自然人群队列研究整体数量少、规模小、文章产出低、队列发展较为局限。

     

    Abstract:
      Objective  To examine the establishment and development of cohort studies among natural populations in Central Asia, South Asia and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and compare those with similar studies in the Netherlands for providing references to planning and performing of population cohort studies in the countries in the future.
      Methods  Through PubMed database, we searched for literatures published till March 1, 2019 on cohort studies conducted among natural populations in 20 Central Asia, South Asia and CIS countries participating in BRI. Information on establishment and development of the studies were extracted, analyzed and compared with similar studies conducted among the population in the Netherlands.
      Results  We totally retrieved 211 cohort studies with the followed-up population of 1 000 or more being carried out in the 20 countries participating in the BRI; of which, 164 (77.73%) and 47 (22.27%) were intra-country and international multicenter cohort studies. From the 211 retrieved cohort studies, 6 cohorts were secondarily selected for subsequent comparison with the 9 retrieved cohorts in the Netherlands. For the 6 cohorts conducted in the countries participating in the BRI, two were intra-country study; two were with the followed-up population of 100 000 or more; two were established in early 1990′s; and the number of published research literatures based on the 6 cohort studies was 400. In contrast, for the 9 retrieved cohort studies in the Netherlands, all were intra-country study; two were with the followed-up population of 100 000 or more; three were established in early 1980′s; and the number of published research literatures based on all the cohort studies was 1 500.
      Conclusion  A large number of natural population cohort studies had been conducted in Central Asia, South Asia and CIS countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative; but the cohort studies had relatively small followed-up population and the quantity of published research literatures based on the cohort studies was also small compared to those of similar studies carried out in the Netherlands.

     

/

返回文章
返回