本文選題：觀察性研究 + 統(tǒng)計報告��； 參考：《鄭州大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的構(gòu)建醫(yī)學(xué)觀察性研究論文統(tǒng)計報告質(zhì)量評價指標(biāo)體系,計算各級指標(biāo)權(quán)重,為定量評價觀察性研究論文統(tǒng)計報告質(zhì)量提供依據(jù)。運(yùn)用構(gòu)建的評價指標(biāo)體系對隨機(jī)抽取的醫(yī)學(xué)期刊刊載的觀察性研究論文進(jìn)行統(tǒng)計報告質(zhì)量評價,客觀評價論文的統(tǒng)計報告質(zhì)量。方法運(yùn)用文獻(xiàn)分析法構(gòu)建醫(yī)學(xué)觀察性研究論文統(tǒng)計報告質(zhì)量評價指標(biāo)體系的初步框架;運(yùn)用改進(jìn)的專家咨詢法對初步框架進(jìn)行修訂;運(yùn)用層次分析法,依據(jù)專家對指標(biāo)重要性的打分計算各級指標(biāo)的權(quán)重。采用分層隨機(jī)等額抽樣的原則,隨機(jī)抽取8本SCI收錄和中文核心醫(yī)學(xué)類期刊,下載270篇期刊刊載的觀察性研究論文,評價并比較不同級別期刊刊載的觀察性研究論文的統(tǒng)計報告質(zhì)量。結(jié)果1三輪專家咨詢的應(yīng)答率分別是95%,100%,100%。第一輪專家咨詢后刪除5個指標(biāo),分別是二級指標(biāo)“研究對象”下的“納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”、“排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”、“對照設(shè)置”,和“研究真實性”下的“偏倚類型”和“偏倚影響”;合并兩個三級指標(biāo),即二級指標(biāo)“統(tǒng)計推斷”下的“統(tǒng)計量”和“P值”合并為“統(tǒng)計量與P值”;增加兩個三級指標(biāo),即“研究真實性”下的“內(nèi)部真實性”和“外部真實性”。第二輪專家咨詢后指標(biāo)重要性和可行性的中位數(shù)均大于7,變異系數(shù)均小于0.25,專家意見達(dá)成一致。評價指標(biāo)體系構(gòu)建完成,包括4個一級指標(biāo),11個二級指標(biāo),27個三級指標(biāo)。2 4個一級指標(biāo)“題目和摘要”、“材料與方法”、“結(jié)果”、“討論”的權(quán)重分別是15.9%、33.7%、39.0%和11.4%。三級指標(biāo)中綜合權(quán)重最大的是“材料與方法”下的“統(tǒng)計方法”,其次是“結(jié)果”下的“統(tǒng)計量與P值”,“模型假設(shè)”,“變量賦值”,“集中/離散趨勢”,“統(tǒng)計圖表”。3 27個三級指標(biāo)中,中文核心期刊與SCI收錄期刊觀察性研究論文統(tǒng)計報告得分均較低的指標(biāo)為“題目和摘要”部分的“統(tǒng)計方法”,“材料與方法”下的“偏倚類型”和“偏倚處理”,“結(jié)果”下的“變量賦值”;前者得滿分的論文數(shù)低于總論文數(shù)50%的指標(biāo)共19個,后者為6個。SCI收錄期刊刊載的觀察性研究論文統(tǒng)計報告質(zhì)量高于中文核心期刊(Z=13.807,P0.001)。兩個級別期刊內(nèi)部橫斷面研究、病例對照研究、隊列研究論文的統(tǒng)計報告得分差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(2c=0.578,P=0.749;c2=1.224,P=0.542)。結(jié)論1專家積極性好,可靠程度高,評價指標(biāo)體系構(gòu)建過程嚴(yán)格,各指標(biāo)的相對重要性符合統(tǒng)計理論,觀察性研究論文統(tǒng)計報告質(zhì)量評價指標(biāo)體系的構(gòu)建是成功的。2與SCI醫(yī)學(xué)期刊載的觀察性研究論文統(tǒng)計報告質(zhì)量相比,中文核心醫(yī)學(xué)類期刊刊載的觀察性研究論文統(tǒng)計報告質(zhì)量較低。
[Abstract]:Objective to construct the evaluation index system of statistical report quality of medical observational research papers and calculate the weight of indexes at all levels so as to provide the basis for quantitative evaluation of statistical report quality of observational research papers. The evaluation index system is used to evaluate the statistical report quality of the observational research papers published in randomly selected medical journals, and objectively evaluate the statistical report quality of the papers. Methods A preliminary framework of evaluation index system for statistical report quality of medical observational research papers was constructed by using literature analysis method, the preliminary framework was revised by using improved expert consultation method, and the analytic hierarchy process was used. The weight of the index at all levels is calculated according to the expert's score on the importance of the index. Based on the principle of stratified random equal sampling, 8 SCI and Chinese core medical journals were randomly selected, and 270 observational research papers were downloaded. To evaluate and compare the quality of statistical reports of observational research papers published in different levels of journals. Results the response rates of 3 rounds of expert consultation were 95% and 100%, respectively. After the first round of expert consultation, five indicators were deleted, namely, "inclusion criteria", "exclusion criteria", "control settings" and "types of bias" and "influence of bias" under "research objects", respectively; Combining two third-level indicators, that is, "statistics" and "P values" under "statistical inference", to form "statistics and P values", and adding two third-level indicators, That is, "internal authenticity" and "external authenticity" under "Research authenticity". After the second round of expert consultation, the median of the importance and feasibility of the index is more than 7, and the coefficient of variation is less than 0.25. The evaluation index system was constructed, including 4 primary indexes, 11 secondary indexes, 27 third grade indexes, 2.24 first-level indexes, "title and summary", "materials and methods", "results" and "discussion", the weights of which were 15.93.733.79.0% and 11.4%, respectively. Among the three levels of indicators, the most comprehensive weight is "statistical method" under "material and method", followed by "statistics and P value" under "result", "model hypothesis", "variable assignment", "concentration / dispersion trend". Of the 27 three levels of statistical charts, the statistical methods of the part of "title and Abstract" were the indicators with lower scores of statistical reports in Chinese core journals and SCI journals. "bias type" and "bias processing" under "materials and methods" and "variable assignment" under "result"; The quality of statistical reports published in 6 sci journals was higher than that in Chinese core journals (ZHZ 13.807 / P0.001). There was no significant difference in the scores of internal cross-sectional studies, case-control studies and cohort study papers between the two levels of journals. Conclusion 1 the experts have good enthusiasm, high degree of reliability, strict construction process of evaluation index system, and the relative importance of each index accords with the statistical theory. The construction of statistical report quality evaluation index system of observational research papers is compared with the quality of observational research papers published in SCI medical journals. The quality of statistical reports published in Chinese core medical journals is low.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：G353.1;R195.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 劉清海;方積乾;;國內(nèi)外醫(yī)學(xué)論文統(tǒng)計學(xué)報告質(zhì)量的比較研究[J];中國科技期刊研究;2008年02期

2 林娜;曾治宇;張明東;張澍;;國內(nèi)外醫(yī)學(xué)期刊論文證據(jù)等級及統(tǒng)計方法的比較——以心律失常學(xué)雜志為例[J];中國科技期刊研究;2014年04期

，

本文編號：1905932