高级检索
张英英, 周晓彬, 张健, 陆彬. 中文临床医学期刊中多因素logistic回归文献报告质量评价[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2016, 32(5): 720-724. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws2016-32-05-44
引用本文: 张英英, 周晓彬, 张健, 陆彬. 中文临床医学期刊中多因素logistic回归文献报告质量评价[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2016, 32(5): 720-724. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws2016-32-05-44
ZHANG Ying-ying, ZHOU Xiao-bin, ZHANG Jian.et al, . Evaluation on presentation quality of multivariable logistic regression results published in Chinese clinical medicine journals[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2016, 32(5): 720-724. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws2016-32-05-44
Citation: ZHANG Ying-ying, ZHOU Xiao-bin, ZHANG Jian.et al, . Evaluation on presentation quality of multivariable logistic regression results published in Chinese clinical medicine journals[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2016, 32(5): 720-724. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws2016-32-05-44

中文临床医学期刊中多因素logistic回归文献报告质量评价

Evaluation on presentation quality of multivariable logistic regression results published in Chinese clinical medicine journals

  • 摘要: 目的 评价中文临床医学期刊中多因素logistic回归(MLR)文献的报告质量,为作者、审稿人和杂志编辑人员合理应用MLR和正确报告研究结果提供参考依据。方法 计算机检索中国生物医学数据库、维普数据库、万方数据库和中国期刊全文数据库,并结合手工检索收集2010年1月1日-2014年12月31日在《中华心血管病杂志》、《中华肿瘤杂志》、《中华神经医学杂志》、《中华儿科杂志》、《中华消化外科杂志》5种中文临床医学杂志发表的281篇MLR文献,评价其MRL的应用及结果报告质量。结果 5种中文临床医学杂志发表的281篇MLR文献中,报告质量得分最高为9分,最低为1分,有75.44%的文献评分<6分,23.84%的文献评分在6~8分;符合率>50%的指标分别为:报告自变量选择依据(67.62%)、报告自变量筛选方法(54.80%)、报告OR值及95%CI(85.41%)、报告统计软件及版本(97.15%)和阳性样本数/自变量个数≥10(77.58%);符合率<10%的分别为:检验自变量间交互作用(3.91%)、检验自变量间多重共线性(1.78%)、模型评价效果(9.96%)、检验异常值(3.56%)、统计学家和流行病学家的参与(0.36%)、和样本量估计方法(0.71%);自变量中含有连续变量或有序分类变量的173篇文献中,有2篇(1.16%)提到检验自变量与logit(P)的线性关系。结论 5种中文临床医学杂志MLR文献总体报告质量较低,杂志社应制定MLR文献的统计学报告指南,鼓励研究者与统计学家和流行病学家合作,提高临床医学MLR文献的报告质量。

     

    Abstract: Objective To evaluate presentation quality of multivariable logistic regression(MLR) results published in major Chinese clinical medicine journals and to provide references for correct presentation of the MLR results to authors, reviewers, and editors.Methods Totally 281 articles with MLR result presentations published from 2010 through 2014 in 5 Chinese clinical medicine journals(Chinese Journal of Cardiology, Chinese Journal of Oncology, Chinese Journal of Neuromedicine, Chinese Journal of Pediatrics, and Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery) were searched from the Chinese Biomedical Data-Base, VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang database with computer retrieval combined with manual searching.All the articles were evaluated with established 15 criteria for appropriate usage and results reporting of MLR analysis.Results The score of presentation quality of MLR results of all the articles ranged from 1 to 9, with a median of 5, and 75.44%(212) of the articles had the score of less than 6.The items properly presented by more than 50% of the articles were name and version of statistics software used(97.2%), the value of the odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval(85.4%), the number of required samples and independent variables(77.6%), the basis of independent variables selection(68.0%), and fitting procedures(54.8%);while the items properly presented by less than 10%of the articles were the participation of statisticians and epidemiologists(0.36%), sample size estimation method(0.71%), verification of collinearity among the independent variables(1.78%), verification of outliers(3.56%), verification of interactions(3.91%), and validation and goodness-of-fit(9.96%).The proportions of the articles presenting the data-entry-form, coding of variables, and ethics approval and informed consent were 14.6%, 16.7%, and 29.9%, respectively.For the 173 articles involved with continuous variable or ordinal categorical variable, only 2 presented the verification of the linearity between the statistics of the variables and the value of logit(P).Conclusion The quality MLR results presentation is poor for articles published in five Chinese clinical journals.Editors should develop statistical presentation guidelines concerning MLR and encourage researchers to cooperate with statisticians and epidemiologists to improve the quality of presentation.

     

/

返回文章
返回