中文肿瘤专业期刊中生存分析的报告质量评价  

Reporting Quality Assessment of Survival Analyses in Studies Published in Chinese Oncology Journals

作　　者：陆彬[1] 周晓彬[1] 张英英[1] 

机构地区：[1]青岛大学医学院流行病与卫生统计教研室,山东青岛266021

出　　处：《中国循证医学杂志》2015年第9期1098-1102,共5页Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine

摘　　要：目的调查我国主要肿瘤专业期刊所发表论著中生存分析方法的应用现状,评价生存分析的报告质量,总结存在的问题,以提高生存分析相关统计方法的应用水平和报告质量。方法选择《中华肿瘤杂志》、《中华肿瘤防治杂志》、《中华放射肿瘤学杂志》和《中国肿瘤临床》2013年所发表的1 492篇论著,纳入使用了生存分析方法的研究,对其生存分析方法的应用情况和报告质量进行评价。结果共纳入242篇使用了生存分析方法的研究,其中Kaplan-Meier法、寿命表法、Log-rank检验、Breslow检验及Cox比例风险模型的使用率分别为91.74%、3.72%、78.51%、0.41%和46.28%。112篇论文进行了多因素分析,且均使用Cox比例风险模型。纳入研究共包含396个终点,有10种不同类型的生存时间,223篇(92.15%)报告了总生存时间,103篇(42.56%)的158个(39.90%)终点对生存时间进行了明确定义。155篇(64.05%)论文报告了随访率,随访率<80%的论文有4篇,最低为75.25%,其余均>80%,55篇随访率为100%。本研究发现的主要问题有:使用Cox比例风险模型的论文中没有论文报告比例风险假定检验情况,没有论文使用参数方法进行生存分析,130篇(53.72%)论文未进行多因素分析,139篇(57.44%)论文未定义生存时间,存在失访的100篇论文中仅11篇报告了对失访的处理情况,没有论文报告样本量的计算方法,没有论文报告删失率。结论我国肿瘤专业期刊论文对生存分析的使用率较低,报告质量尚存在不足。建议制订生存分析类研究的报告指南,鼓励吸纳统计学专业人员参与相关研究的设计、分析和报告,以提高论文质量。Objective To investigate the application status of survival analysis in studies published in Chinese oncology journals, and assess their reporting quality and summarize the existing problems, so as to promote the application of survival analysis and reporting quality. Methods Studies that used survival analysis were collected from 1 492 studies published in Chinese Journal of Oncology, Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology, Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology and Chinese Journal of Cancer Prevention and Treatment in 2013. The application status of survival analysis of included studies was analysed and their reporting quality was evaluated. Results A total of 242 survival analysis studies were included. Among them, the utilization rates of Kaplan-Meier method, life table method, log-rank test, Breslow test and Cox proportional hazards model were 91.74%, 3.72%, 78.51%, 0.41% and 46.28%, respectively. 112 studies did multivariate analysis through Cox proportional hazards model. A total of 396 end points and 10 different types of survival time were reported. Overall survival （OS） was reported in 233 studies （92.15%）. Survival terms were defined to 158 end points （39.90%） of 103 studies （42.56%）. The follow-up rates were mentioned in 155 studies （64.05%）, of which 4 studies were under 80% and the lowest was 75.25%, 55 studies were 100%. The main problems of survival analysis studies published in Chinese journals were as follows： None of the studies which used Cox proportional hazards model reported the proportional hazards assumption. None of the studies used the method of parametric survival analysis. 130 studies （53.72%） did not use the method of multiple factor analysis. 139 studies （57.44%） did not define the survival terms. Only 11 of 100 studies which reported loss to follow-up had stated how to treat it in the analysis. None of the studies reported the methods of calculating sample size. None of the studies reported the censoring proportion. Conclusion The methods of survival anal

关 键 词：生存分析 肿瘤 肿瘤专业期刊 报告质量 报告指南 

分 类 号：R73[医药卫生—肿瘤] G353.1[医药卫生—临床医学]