通过比较回归模型分析马来西亚郊区首次中风患者的预后因素

IF 1 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Electronic Journal of General Medicine Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.29333/ejgm/13717
Nadiah Wan-Arfah, Mustapha Muzaimi, Nyi Nyi Naing, Vetriselvan Subramaniyan, Ling Shing Wong, Siddharthan Selvaraj
{"title":"通过比较回归模型分析马来西亚郊区首次中风患者的预后因素","authors":"Nadiah Wan-Arfah, Mustapha Muzaimi, Nyi Nyi Naing, Vetriselvan Subramaniyan, Ling Shing Wong, Siddharthan Selvaraj","doi":"10.29333/ejgm/13717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<b>Introduction:</b> The aim of this study was to compare regression models based on the parameter estimates of prognostic factors of mortality in first-ever stroke patients.<br /> <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective study among 432 first-ever stroke patients admitted to Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia, was carried out. Patient’s medical records were extracted using a standardized data collection sheet. The statistical analyses used for modelling the prognostic factors of mortality were Cox proportional hazards regression, multinomial logistic regression, and multiple logistic regression.<br /> <b>Results:</b> A total of 101 (23.4%) events of death were identified and 331 patients (76.6%) were alive. Despite using three different statistical analyses, the results were very similar in terms of five major aspects of parameter estimates, namely direction, estimation, precision, significance, and magnitude of risk assessment. It was reported slightly better in Cox proportional hazards regression model, especially in terms of the precision of the results.<br /> <b>Conclusions:</b> Given that this study had compared the findings from three different types of advanced statistical methods, this research has clearly yielded that with data of high quality, the selection of appropriate statistical method should not be a worrisome problem for researchers who may not be of expertise in the field of medical statistics.","PeriodicalId":44930,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of General Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prognostic factors of first-ever stroke patients in suburban Malaysia by comparing regression models\",\"authors\":\"Nadiah Wan-Arfah, Mustapha Muzaimi, Nyi Nyi Naing, Vetriselvan Subramaniyan, Ling Shing Wong, Siddharthan Selvaraj\",\"doi\":\"10.29333/ejgm/13717\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<b>Introduction:</b> The aim of this study was to compare regression models based on the parameter estimates of prognostic factors of mortality in first-ever stroke patients.<br /> <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective study among 432 first-ever stroke patients admitted to Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia, was carried out. Patient’s medical records were extracted using a standardized data collection sheet. The statistical analyses used for modelling the prognostic factors of mortality were Cox proportional hazards regression, multinomial logistic regression, and multiple logistic regression.<br /> <b>Results:</b> A total of 101 (23.4%) events of death were identified and 331 patients (76.6%) were alive. Despite using three different statistical analyses, the results were very similar in terms of five major aspects of parameter estimates, namely direction, estimation, precision, significance, and magnitude of risk assessment. It was reported slightly better in Cox proportional hazards regression model, especially in terms of the precision of the results.<br /> <b>Conclusions:</b> Given that this study had compared the findings from three different types of advanced statistical methods, this research has clearly yielded that with data of high quality, the selection of appropriate statistical method should not be a worrisome problem for researchers who may not be of expertise in the field of medical statistics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44930,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electronic Journal of General Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electronic Journal of General Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/13717\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of General Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/13717","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

& lt; b>介绍:& lt; / b>本研究的目的是比较基于首次中风患者死亡预后因素参数估计的回归模型。& lt; b>方法:& lt; / b>对马来西亚吉兰丹州马来西亚大学医院收治的432例首次中风患者进行回顾性研究。使用标准化数据收集表提取患者的医疗记录。对死亡预后因素建模的统计分析采用Cox比例风险回归、多项逻辑回归和多元逻辑回归。& lt; b>结果:& lt; / b>共发现101例(23.4%)死亡事件,331例(76.6%)存活。尽管使用了三种不同的统计分析,但在参数估计的五个主要方面,即风险评估的方向、估计、精度、显著性和幅度,结果非常相似。Cox比例风险回归模型稍好,特别是在结果的精度方面。<br />& lt; b>结论:& lt; / b>鉴于本研究比较了三种不同类型的先进统计方法的结果,本研究清楚地表明,由于数据质量高,对于可能不是医学统计领域专业知识的研究人员来说,选择适当的统计方法不应该是一个令人担忧的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Prognostic factors of first-ever stroke patients in suburban Malaysia by comparing regression models
Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare regression models based on the parameter estimates of prognostic factors of mortality in first-ever stroke patients.
Methods: A retrospective study among 432 first-ever stroke patients admitted to Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia, was carried out. Patient’s medical records were extracted using a standardized data collection sheet. The statistical analyses used for modelling the prognostic factors of mortality were Cox proportional hazards regression, multinomial logistic regression, and multiple logistic regression.
Results: A total of 101 (23.4%) events of death were identified and 331 patients (76.6%) were alive. Despite using three different statistical analyses, the results were very similar in terms of five major aspects of parameter estimates, namely direction, estimation, precision, significance, and magnitude of risk assessment. It was reported slightly better in Cox proportional hazards regression model, especially in terms of the precision of the results.
Conclusions: Given that this study had compared the findings from three different types of advanced statistical methods, this research has clearly yielded that with data of high quality, the selection of appropriate statistical method should not be a worrisome problem for researchers who may not be of expertise in the field of medical statistics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Electronic Journal of General Medicine
Electronic Journal of General Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
79
期刊最新文献
Corrected QT interval and QT dispersion in temporal lobe epilepsy in children and adolescent Primary pulmonary enteric adenocarcinoma: A case report and review of literature Risk factors for postpartum stress urinary incontinence: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis Long-term humoral and cellular responses elicited by Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine in hemodialysis patients: A prospective cohort study Investigating the value of medication management review for asthma patients: A randomized controlled study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1