發(fā)布時間：2018-06-01 22:01

  本文選題：Bland-Altman方法 + 一致性評價　； 參考：《南方醫(yī)科大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：研究背景和目的隨著Bland-Altman方法在醫(yī)藥衛(wèi)生領(lǐng)域的逐步推廣及應(yīng)用,Bland-Altman方法一致性評價研究報告質(zhì)量卻令人堪憂。盡管國內(nèi)外越來越多的學(xué)者已意識到提高Bland-Altman方法一致性評價報告質(zhì)量的重要性和必要性,并且針對性地提出了建議,甚至有學(xué)者提出了研究報告應(yīng)當(dāng)包含的基本條目,但這些建議的報告條目仍然過于籠統(tǒng)、不夠全面和細(xì)化,指導(dǎo)性不強。因此,本研究致力開發(fā)一套系統(tǒng)的、全面的Bland-Altman方法應(yīng)用報告規(guī)范,以指導(dǎo)Bland-Altman方法的應(yīng)用,切實提升一致性研究報告的質(zhì)量。研究方法本研究通過組建Bland-Altman方法一致性評價研究報告規(guī)范課題組開展工作。前期,課題組成員進行充分文獻復(fù)習(xí)、定期會議討論、咨詢同行專家、系統(tǒng)評價文獻、條目整合提煉;爾后邀請多學(xué)科專家通過頭腦風(fēng)暴法完善整體設(shè)計、評議報告條目,借助Delphi法進行多輪專家咨詢,集成專家意見建議,形成報告條目的基本框架;最后經(jīng)課題組內(nèi)研究論證,擬定Bland-Altman方法一致性評價報告的條目(Reporting items of agreement evaluation using Bland-Altman Method,RiBAM),作為推薦的報告條目(簡稱為RiBAM推薦),同時撰寫了與 RiBAM 推薦配套的“說明和詳述”(Explanation and Elaboration,EE)文件。研究結(jié)果本研究綜述了國際上醫(yī)藥衛(wèi)生領(lǐng)域Bland-Altman方法一致性評價報告的現(xiàn)狀;系統(tǒng)評價了我國醫(yī)學(xué)期刊近3年發(fā)表的相關(guān)文獻的報告質(zhì)量;開發(fā)了由17個一級條目、23個二級條目組成的RiBAM推薦;撰寫了與RiBAM推薦配套的EE文件。研究結(jié)論目前國內(nèi)外關(guān)于Bland-Altman方法一致性評價報告的質(zhì)量不容樂觀。.本研究提出的RiBAM推薦較為全面系統(tǒng),對避免報告內(nèi)容的遺漏、實現(xiàn)報告的清晰性、完整性和透明性,進而提升研究的報告質(zhì)量具有重要參考價值。撰寫的與RiBAM推薦相配套的EE文件全面、細(xì)化,對正確指導(dǎo)每一條目的撰寫具有很好的實用性。本研究不僅有助于研究者提高Bland-Altman方法應(yīng)用報告質(zhì)量,而且對醫(yī)學(xué)期刊編輯、同行審稿人和讀者更科學(xué)、客觀、合理地審查、評價和理解研究報告也大有裨益,對改善未來的研究設(shè)計、實施和分析解釋也可發(fā)揮積極作用。
[Abstract]:Background and objective with the gradual popularization and application of Bland-Altman method in the field of medicine and health, the quality of research report on consistency evaluation of Bland-Altman method is worrying. Although more and more scholars at home and abroad have realized the importance and necessity of improving the quality of Bland-Altman method consistency evaluation report, and put forward some suggestions, some scholars even put forward the basic items that should be included in the research report. However, these recommendations report items are still too general, not comprehensive and detailed, guidance is not strong. Therefore, this study is devoted to developing a set of systematic and comprehensive Bland-Altman method application report specification to guide the application of Bland-Altman method and improve the quality of consistency research report. Methods in this study, we set up a research group to standardize the consistency evaluation of Bland-Altman method. In the early stage, the members of the research group conducted a full review of the literature, held regular meetings and discussions, consulted the peer experts, systematically evaluated the literature, and refined the items. After that, they invited multidisciplinary experts to perfect the overall design through brainstorming, and to comment on the report items. With the help of Delphi method to carry out many rounds of expert consultation and integrate expert opinions and suggestions to form the basic framework of the report item; finally, through the research and demonstration in the research group, This paper draws up the item of Bland-Altman method consistency evaluation report as a recommended report item (RiBAM recommendation for short), and at the same time, writes the "explanation and detail" document "explanation and detail" accompanying RiBAM recommendation. Results in this study, the current status of Bland-Altman consistency evaluation reports in the field of medicine and health was reviewed, and the quality of the relevant literature published in Chinese medical journals in recent three years was systematically evaluated. A RiBAM recommendation consisting of 17 first-level entries and 23 second-level entries is developed, and the EE file associated with RiBAM recommendation is written. Conclusion the quality of Bland-Altman consistency evaluation report at home and abroad is not optimistic. The RiBAM recommendation proposed in this study is more comprehensive and systematic, which has important reference value for avoiding the omission of the report content, realizing the clarity, completeness and transparency of the report, and then improving the quality of the report. The EE file written with the RiBAM recommendation is comprehensive and detailed, and has good practicability for correctly guiding the writing of each item. This study not only helps researchers to improve the quality of Bland-Altman application reports, but also helps medical journal editors, peer reviewers and readers to review, evaluate and understand the research reports in a more scientific, objective and reasonable manner. It can also play a positive role in improving future research design, implementation, and analysis and interpretation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南方醫(yī)科大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：G353.1;R-05

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 白琳;周亞婷;史顏梅;張淑香;;不同參照點對ICU患者腹內(nèi)壓測量的影響[J];中國實用護理雜志;2016年23期

2 李震南;侯志輝;劉坤;高揚;尹衛(wèi)華;任心爽;呂濱;;CT冠狀動脈成像半自動化測量非鈣化斑塊的可重復(fù)性研究[J];中華臨床醫(yī)師雜志(電子版);2016年13期

3 楊建鑫;魯立;左琦;繆琴;聞浩;王慧琳;劉玉巧;朱琴;;醫(yī)學(xué)期刊論文中的析因設(shè)計、生存分析及Bland-Altman法常見錯誤分析[J];編輯學(xué)報;2016年03期

4 肖信;劉偉民;黃建忠;王英;;角膜生物力學(xué)分析儀測量近視患者中央角膜厚度和眼壓的準(zhǔn)確性評價[J];中華實驗眼科雜志;2016年04期

5 賈冕;趙進喜;皇甫偉;;基于中醫(yī)證候?qū)W的糖尿病腎病患者腎小球濾過率評估方法的探索[J];環(huán)球中醫(yī)藥;2016年03期

6 聞浩;陸夢潔;劉玉秀;于浩;;定量測量Bland-Altman一致性評價方法研究及臨床應(yīng)用[J];醫(yī)學(xué)研究生學(xué)報;2015年10期

7 李云飛;馬建鋒;陳曉婷;;檢測結(jié)果一致性評價方法的選擇[J];臨床檢驗雜志;2015年08期

8 陸夢潔;劉玉秀;繆華章;鐘偉華;李永昌;;Bland-Altman一致性評價的樣本含量估計[J];中國衛(wèi)生統(tǒng)計;2015年03期

9 黃麗娜;倪衡建;姜建威;殷允娟;;256層CT肝臟體積自動測量研究[J];中國臨床研究;2015年02期

10 倪平;陳卉;涂嬌;許林勇;;基于Bland-Altman法對定量資料的一致性評價及其SAS宏實現(xiàn)[J];中國臨床藥理學(xué)與治療學(xué);2014年08期

，

本文編號：1965834