以疾病类型、年龄、性别为重点分析支气管扩张

Dick M. Goedhart , Pieter Zanen , Jan-Willem J. Lammers
{"title":"以疾病类型、年龄、性别为重点分析支气管扩张","authors":"Dick M. Goedhart ,&nbsp;Pieter Zanen ,&nbsp;Jan-Willem J. Lammers","doi":"10.1016/j.cct.2004.08.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the literature, different statistical methods to evaluate bronchodilator studies are used. These approaches are all based on the absence of residual heterogeneity and on baseline independency of the parameter under analysis. A database containing the lung function values of newly referred patients was used to assess these assumptions as function of the underlying diagnosis (asthma, bronchitis and emphysema) and to chart the characteristics of analysis of covariance, which (partly) deals with these drawbacks. Bronchodilator data of 709 asthmatics, 522 bronchitic and 126 emphysema patients were used. It was shown that, in asthma, for almost all lung function parameters, bronchodilation was indeed dependent on baseline values, which was less strong in bronchitis and even weaker in emphysema. A negative effect of age on bronchodilation was found, which is strong in asthma and almost absent in emphysema, rendering the use of bronchodilation as a diagnostic tool less useful. The conclusion is that analysis of covariance is a good way to evaluate bronchodilation studies in obstructive lung disease, particularly in asthma. For bronchitic or emphysema patients, difference-based approaches may suffice. The assumptions underlying the other methods were not met.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72706,"journal":{"name":"Controlled clinical trials","volume":"25 6","pages":"Pages 563-571"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cct.2004.08.006","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyzing bronchodilation with emphasis on disease type, age and sex\",\"authors\":\"Dick M. Goedhart ,&nbsp;Pieter Zanen ,&nbsp;Jan-Willem J. Lammers\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cct.2004.08.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In the literature, different statistical methods to evaluate bronchodilator studies are used. These approaches are all based on the absence of residual heterogeneity and on baseline independency of the parameter under analysis. A database containing the lung function values of newly referred patients was used to assess these assumptions as function of the underlying diagnosis (asthma, bronchitis and emphysema) and to chart the characteristics of analysis of covariance, which (partly) deals with these drawbacks. Bronchodilator data of 709 asthmatics, 522 bronchitic and 126 emphysema patients were used. It was shown that, in asthma, for almost all lung function parameters, bronchodilation was indeed dependent on baseline values, which was less strong in bronchitis and even weaker in emphysema. A negative effect of age on bronchodilation was found, which is strong in asthma and almost absent in emphysema, rendering the use of bronchodilation as a diagnostic tool less useful. The conclusion is that analysis of covariance is a good way to evaluate bronchodilation studies in obstructive lung disease, particularly in asthma. For bronchitic or emphysema patients, difference-based approaches may suffice. The assumptions underlying the other methods were not met.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Controlled clinical trials\",\"volume\":\"25 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 563-571\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.cct.2004.08.006\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Controlled clinical trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019724560400090X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Controlled clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019724560400090X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在文献中,使用了不同的统计方法来评估支气管扩张剂研究。这些方法都是基于不存在剩余异质性和分析参数的基线独立性。使用包含新转诊患者肺功能值的数据库来评估这些假设作为潜在诊断(哮喘,支气管炎和肺气肿)的功能,并绘制协方差分析的特征图,(部分)处理这些缺点。使用709例哮喘患者、522例支气管炎患者和126例肺气肿患者的支气管扩张剂数据。研究表明,在哮喘患者中,几乎所有肺功能参数的支气管扩张确实依赖于基线值,支气管炎患者的支气管扩张较弱,肺气肿患者的支气管扩张更弱。研究发现,年龄对支气管扩张有负面影响,这种影响在哮喘中很强,而在肺气肿中几乎不存在,这使得使用支气管扩张作为诊断工具的用处不大。结论是协方差分析是评价阻塞性肺疾病,特别是哮喘中支气管扩张研究的好方法。对于支气管炎或肺气肿患者,基于差异的方法可能就足够了。其他方法所依据的假设没有得到满足。
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
Analyzing bronchodilation with emphasis on disease type, age and sex

In the literature, different statistical methods to evaluate bronchodilator studies are used. These approaches are all based on the absence of residual heterogeneity and on baseline independency of the parameter under analysis. A database containing the lung function values of newly referred patients was used to assess these assumptions as function of the underlying diagnosis (asthma, bronchitis and emphysema) and to chart the characteristics of analysis of covariance, which (partly) deals with these drawbacks. Bronchodilator data of 709 asthmatics, 522 bronchitic and 126 emphysema patients were used. It was shown that, in asthma, for almost all lung function parameters, bronchodilation was indeed dependent on baseline values, which was less strong in bronchitis and even weaker in emphysema. A negative effect of age on bronchodilation was found, which is strong in asthma and almost absent in emphysema, rendering the use of bronchodilation as a diagnostic tool less useful. The conclusion is that analysis of covariance is a good way to evaluate bronchodilation studies in obstructive lung disease, particularly in asthma. For bronchitic or emphysema patients, difference-based approaches may suffice. The assumptions underlying the other methods were not met.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board On the generation and ownership of alpha in medical studies Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels Geographic variability in patient characteristics, treatment and outcome in an international trial of magnesium in acute myocardial infarction Analyzing bronchodilation with emphasis on disease type, age and sex
×
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