中华预防医学杂志
中華預防醫學雜誌
중화예방의학잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF
2013年
10期
900-904
,共5页
罗树生%夏伟%关宏岩%樊朝阳%左树岩%朱徐%罗会明%徐晓超%许宗余
囉樹生%夏偉%關宏巖%樊朝暘%左樹巖%硃徐%囉會明%徐曉超%許宗餘
라수생%하위%관굉암%번조양%좌수암%주서%라회명%서효초%허종여
婴儿,新生%破伤风%发病率%认证%加权
嬰兒,新生%破傷風%髮病率%認證%加權
영인,신생%파상풍%발병솔%인증%가권
Infant,newborn%Tetanus%Incidence%Validation%Weighting
目的 利用多种来源数据建立中国新生儿破伤风高危地区的筛选方法.方法 利用2010-2011年国家法定传染病上报系统、全国妇幼卫生信息年报系统等提供的数据,选择6个新生儿破伤风相关指标,采用综合加权方法计算每个地级市的高危评分,筛选出最高危的30个地市,并将该结果与新生儿破伤风发病监测系统的破伤风发病率排位结果和WHO评分方法的排位结果进行比较.结果 我国最高危的区域集中分布在西南部贫困的少数民族聚集区和东南部流动人口聚集区,高危加权综合评分的前30位中有8个地市的破伤风发病率排位在30位之后.高危加权综合评分与WHO评分方法的结果相比较,340个地市中,排位分组完全相同的为276个,一致性Kappa系数为0.56(P ＜0.01).两种排位结果的卡方列联系数为0.74(P ＜0.01),具有高度关联.但在两种方法的前36位中,有10个地市不相同.结论 本综合加权评分纳入了多个影响我国新生儿破伤风发病率的因素,并考虑各因素数值大小的作用,因而与WHO评分方法相比,这种方法对我国新生儿破伤风高危地区的筛查更接近真实情况.
目的 利用多種來源數據建立中國新生兒破傷風高危地區的篩選方法.方法 利用2010-2011年國傢法定傳染病上報繫統、全國婦幼衛生信息年報繫統等提供的數據,選擇6箇新生兒破傷風相關指標,採用綜閤加權方法計算每箇地級市的高危評分,篩選齣最高危的30箇地市,併將該結果與新生兒破傷風髮病鑑測繫統的破傷風髮病率排位結果和WHO評分方法的排位結果進行比較.結果 我國最高危的區域集中分佈在西南部貧睏的少數民族聚集區和東南部流動人口聚集區,高危加權綜閤評分的前30位中有8箇地市的破傷風髮病率排位在30位之後.高危加權綜閤評分與WHO評分方法的結果相比較,340箇地市中,排位分組完全相同的為276箇,一緻性Kappa繫數為0.56(P ＜0.01).兩種排位結果的卡方列聯繫數為0.74(P ＜0.01),具有高度關聯.但在兩種方法的前36位中,有10箇地市不相同.結論 本綜閤加權評分納入瞭多箇影響我國新生兒破傷風髮病率的因素,併攷慮各因素數值大小的作用,因而與WHO評分方法相比,這種方法對我國新生兒破傷風高危地區的篩查更接近真實情況.
목적 이용다충래원수거건립중국신생인파상풍고위지구적사선방법.방법 이용2010-2011년국가법정전염병상보계통、전국부유위생신식년보계통등제공적수거,선택6개신생인파상풍상관지표,채용종합가권방법계산매개지급시적고위평분,사선출최고위적30개지시,병장해결과여신생인파상풍발병감측계통적파상풍발병솔배위결과화WHO평분방법적배위결과진행비교.결과 아국최고위적구역집중분포재서남부빈곤적소수민족취집구화동남부류동인구취집구,고위가권종합평분적전30위중유8개지시적파상풍발병솔배위재30위지후.고위가권종합평분여WHO평분방법적결과상비교,340개지시중,배위분조완전상동적위276개,일치성Kappa계수위0.56(P ＜0.01).량충배위결과적잡방렬련계수위0.74(P ＜0.01),구유고도관련.단재량충방법적전36위중,유10개지시불상동.결론 본종합가권평분납입료다개영향아국신생인파상풍발병솔적인소,병고필각인소수치대소적작용,인이여WHO평분방법상비,저충방법대아국신생인파상풍고위지구적사사경접근진실정황.
Objectives To establish a method for screening neonatal tetanus (NT) in high risk areas in China using multi-sources data.Methods We adopted six NT-related indicators from National Notifiable Disease Report System (NNDRS) and National Maternal and Child Health Annual Report System,to calculate weighted high-risk score at prefecture level in 2010 and 2011.And we selected the top 30 high risk cities,and compared the scores with the actual NT incidence ranking and WHO scoring.Results The highest areas distributed in the Southwest of China with poor and minority population,and the Southeast part with high density of migrants.In the leading 30 prefectures with high score between the methods of weighted high-risk scoring and reported NT incidence ranking,there were 8 different.In comparison of the results of the methods of weighed high-risk scoring and WHO scoring,276 prefectures in 340 distributed were divided into the same ranking groups,with Kappa coefficient 0.56 (P ＜ 0.01).The Chi-Square association coefficient was 0.74(P ＜ 0.01),which showed a high correlation.But there were 10 different prefectures in the leading 36 prefectures between the two methods.Conclusion The weighted scoring method included several possible factors influencing NT incidence and took their weights into consideration.Thereby,compared with WHO scoring method,this method could be more appropriate for the reality in China.
