| 朱亚楠,张娟娟,韩景静,陈慧林,卢梓航,陈征.汇总数据的疫情病死率估计方法及其应用[J].Chinese journal of Epidemiology,2014,35(5):600-605 |
| 汇总数据的疫情病死率估计方法及其应用 |
|
| Received:November 24, 2013 |
| DOI：10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2014.05.030 |
| KeyWord: 病死率 汇总数据 生存分析 |
| English Key Word: Case fatality rate Summarizing data Survival analysis |
| FundProject:国家自然科学基金（81202288）；广东省科技计划（2010B031600100）；广州市科技计划（2012J5100023）；国家级大学生创新创业训练计划（201212121002）；广东省大学生创新创业训练计划（1212112002） |
| Author Name | Affiliation | E-mail | | Zhu Yanan | The Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China | | | Zhang Juanjuan | The Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China | | | Han Jingjing | The Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China | | | Chen Huilin | The Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China | | | Lu Zihang | The Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China | | | Chen Zheng | The Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China | zchen@smu.edu.cn |
|
| Hits: 4020 |
| Download times: 2390 |
| Abstract: |
| 比较5种基于汇总数据的疫情病死率估计方法的差异。通过模拟分析发现，方法3（见文献［7，8］）、方法4（见文献［9］）病死率估计值的相对误差和标准差均较小；而实例数据分析中，方法3和方法4能够较好反映中国香港和新加坡两地SARS病死率情况，而方法1（见文献［5］）和方法2（见文献［6］）能较好评估北京地区SARS和中国大陆人感染H7N9禽流感疫情病死率的即时情况。表明基于汇总数据的方法3、4可在疫情初期对病死率进行较为准确的估计，而方法1、2可在疫情出现变化时较好反映病死率的即时情况。 |
| English Abstract: |
| based on the summarizing data. Case fatality rates，derived from the simulation data，2003 SARS epidemic data in Hong Kong, Singapore Beijing and the 2013 H7N9 epidemic data in mainland China were analyzed, using these 5 methods. Results from the simulation analysis discovered that the relative errors and the standard deviations of the Chen［7,8］（method 3), Chen［9］（method 4）were minor with high accuracy. Data from the analysis on 2003 SARS epidemic wasnoticed that the estimation from method 3，4 in Hong Kong and Singapore both showing high veracities. Since the case fatality rate reported in Beijing was not a constant value, method 5 showed low accuracy even though it was close to the final case fatality rate. Data from the 2013 H7N9 epidemic showed that the estimations of method 1, 2, 3, 4 were all higher than that in the method 5, suggesting that method 3, 4 could be used to estimate the case fatality rates of epidemics more precisely. |
|
View Fulltext
Html FullText
View/Add Comment Download reader |
| Close |
|
|
|