LaValley Michael P, Felson David T
Boston University School of Public Health, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Arthritis Rheum. 2002 Jun 15;47(3):255-9. doi: 10.1002/art.10453.
To assess the appropriateness of presentation of summary measures and analysis of ordered categorical (ordinal) data in three rheumatology journals in 1999, and to consider differences between basic and clinical science articles.
Six hundred forty-four full-length articles from the 1999 editions of 3 rheumatology journals were evaluated for inclusion of an ordinal outcome. Articles were classified as basic or clinical science, and the appropriateness of presentation and analysis of the ordinal outcome were assessed. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate difference in percentages.
Ordinal outcomes were identified in 175 (27.2%) of 644 articles. Only 69 (39.4%) had appropriate data presentation, and 111 (63.4%) had appropriate data analysis. Appropriate presentation was seen less commonly in the basic science rather than the clinical science articles, but differences in the occurrence of appropriate analysis were not seen.
Ordinal data are common in rheumatology articles, but presentation usually does not conform to recommended guidelines.
评估1999年三种风湿病学杂志中汇总指标呈现及有序分类（序数）数据分析的恰当性，并探讨基础科学文章与临床科学文章之间的差异。
对1999年3种风湿病学杂志中的644篇全文进行评估，看是否包含序数结局。文章分为基础科学或临床科学类，并评估序数结局呈现及分析的恰当性。采用卡方检验评估百分比差异。
644篇文章中有175篇（27.2%）确定存在序数结局。只有69篇（39.4%）数据呈现恰当，111篇（63.4%）数据分析恰当。基础科学文章中恰当呈现不如临床科学文章常见，但恰当分析的发生率未见差异。
序数数据在风湿病学文章中很常见，但呈现方式通常不符合推荐指南。
