多发性硬化病例定义的趋势控制图。

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Population Data Science Pub Date : 2024-04-30 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.23889/ijpds.v9i1.2358
Naomi C Hamm, Ruth Ann Marrie, Depeng Jiang, Pourang Irani, Lisa M Lix
{"title":"多发性硬化病例定义的趋势控制图。","authors":"Naomi C Hamm, Ruth Ann Marrie, Depeng Jiang, Pourang Irani, Lisa M Lix","doi":"10.23889/ijpds.v9i1.2358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The validity of chronic disease case definitions for administrative health data may change over time due to changes in data quality. Trend control charts to identify out-of-control (OOC; i.e., unexpected) observations in a time series may indicate where disease estimates are influenced by changes in data quality.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Apply and compare trend control charts methods for multiple sclerosis (MS) incidence and prevalence estimates using previously-validated case definitions for Manitoba, Canada.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eight case definitions were identified from published literature and applied to Manitoba administrative health data from January 1, 1972 to December 31, 2018. Incidence and prevalence trends were modeled using negative binomial and generalized estimating equation models, respectively. Trend control charts were used to plot predicted case counts against observed case counts. Control limits to identify OOC observations were calculated using two methods: predicted case count ±0.8*standard deviation (0.8*SD) and predicted case count ±2*standard deviation (2*SD). Differences in proportion of OOC observations across case definitions was assessed using McNemar's test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The proportion of OOC observations ranged from 0.71 to 0.90 for incidence and 0.72 to 0.98 for prevalence when using the 0.8*SD control limits. A lower proportion of OOC observations (0.46 to 0.74 for incidence; 0.30 to 0.74 for prevalence) was observed for the 2*SD control limits. Neither method resulted in significant differences in OOC observations across case definitions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proportion of OOC observations in trend control charts varied with the control limit method adopted, but statistical significance did not. Trend control charts are a potentially useful tool for developing surveillance methods, but may benefit from disease-specific calibrated control limits.</p>","PeriodicalId":36483,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Population Data Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"2358"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11606511/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trend control charts for multiple sclerosis case definitions.\",\"authors\":\"Naomi C Hamm, Ruth Ann Marrie, Depeng Jiang, Pourang Irani, Lisa M Lix\",\"doi\":\"10.23889/ijpds.v9i1.2358\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The validity of chronic disease case definitions for administrative health data may change over time due to changes in data quality. Trend control charts to identify out-of-control (OOC; i.e., unexpected) observations in a time series may indicate where disease estimates are influenced by changes in data quality.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Apply and compare trend control charts methods for multiple sclerosis (MS) incidence and prevalence estimates using previously-validated case definitions for Manitoba, Canada.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eight case definitions were identified from published literature and applied to Manitoba administrative health data from January 1, 1972 to December 31, 2018. Incidence and prevalence trends were modeled using negative binomial and generalized estimating equation models, respectively. Trend control charts were used to plot predicted case counts against observed case counts. Control limits to identify OOC observations were calculated using two methods: predicted case count ±0.8*standard deviation (0.8*SD) and predicted case count ±2*standard deviation (2*SD). Differences in proportion of OOC observations across case definitions was assessed using McNemar's test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The proportion of OOC observations ranged from 0.71 to 0.90 for incidence and 0.72 to 0.98 for prevalence when using the 0.8*SD control limits. A lower proportion of OOC observations (0.46 to 0.74 for incidence; 0.30 to 0.74 for prevalence) was observed for the 2*SD control limits. Neither method resulted in significant differences in OOC observations across case definitions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proportion of OOC observations in trend control charts varied with the control limit method adopted, but statistical significance did not. Trend control charts are a potentially useful tool for developing surveillance methods, but may benefit from disease-specific calibrated control limits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Population Data Science\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"2358\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11606511/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Population Data Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v9i1.2358\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Population Data Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v9i1.2358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:由于数据质量的变化,慢性病病例定义对行政卫生数据的有效性可能会随着时间的推移而改变。趋势控制图用于识别失控(OOC);即,时间序列中的意外观察结果可能表明疾病估计在何处受到数据质量变化的影响。目的:应用趋势控制图方法对加拿大马尼托巴省的多发性硬化症(MS)发病率和患病率进行估算并进行比较。方法:从已发表的文献中确定8个病例定义,并将其应用于1972年1月1日至2018年12月31日的马尼托巴行政卫生数据。发病率和患病率趋势分别采用负二项和广义估计方程模型。趋势控制图用于绘制预测病例数与观察病例数的对比图。采用预测病例数±0.8*标准差(0.8*SD)和预测病例数±2*标准差(2*SD)两种方法计算OOC观察值的控制限。使用McNemar检验评估不同病例定义中OOC观察比例的差异。结果:在0.8*SD控制限下,OOC的发生率为0.71 ~ 0.90,患病率为0.72 ~ 0.98。OOC观测值的发生率较低(0.46 ~ 0.74);2*SD控制限为0.30 ~ 0.74(患病率)。两种方法在不同病例定义的OOC观察结果中都没有显著差异。结论:不同控制限法,OOC观测值在趋势控制图中所占比例不同,但无统计学意义。趋势控制图是开发监测方法的潜在有用工具,但可能受益于特定疾病校准的控制限度。
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
Trend control charts for multiple sclerosis case definitions.

Introduction: The validity of chronic disease case definitions for administrative health data may change over time due to changes in data quality. Trend control charts to identify out-of-control (OOC; i.e., unexpected) observations in a time series may indicate where disease estimates are influenced by changes in data quality.

Objective: Apply and compare trend control charts methods for multiple sclerosis (MS) incidence and prevalence estimates using previously-validated case definitions for Manitoba, Canada.

Methods: Eight case definitions were identified from published literature and applied to Manitoba administrative health data from January 1, 1972 to December 31, 2018. Incidence and prevalence trends were modeled using negative binomial and generalized estimating equation models, respectively. Trend control charts were used to plot predicted case counts against observed case counts. Control limits to identify OOC observations were calculated using two methods: predicted case count ±0.8*standard deviation (0.8*SD) and predicted case count ±2*standard deviation (2*SD). Differences in proportion of OOC observations across case definitions was assessed using McNemar's test.

Results: The proportion of OOC observations ranged from 0.71 to 0.90 for incidence and 0.72 to 0.98 for prevalence when using the 0.8*SD control limits. A lower proportion of OOC observations (0.46 to 0.74 for incidence; 0.30 to 0.74 for prevalence) was observed for the 2*SD control limits. Neither method resulted in significant differences in OOC observations across case definitions.

Conclusions: The proportion of OOC observations in trend control charts varied with the control limit method adopted, but statistical significance did not. Trend control charts are a potentially useful tool for developing surveillance methods, but may benefit from disease-specific calibrated control limits.

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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
386
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Neonates With In-Utero SSRI Exposure (NeoWISE): a retrospective cohort study examining the effect of newborn feeding method on newborn withdrawal. Secondary use of routinely collected administrative health data for epidemiologic research: Answering research questions using data collected for a different purpose. Validity of heart failure diagnoses, treatments, and readmissions in the Danish National Patient Registry. Creating an 11-year longitudinal substance use harm cohort from linked health and census data to analyse social drivers of health. Research data use in a digital society: a deliberative public engagement.
×
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