Health Methodology Research Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Epidemiology. 2010 May;21(3):376-8. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181d5c03f.
Accuracy of incidence estimates may be affected by biases that depend on frequency of approach to reporters and reporting window length. A time-sampling strategy enables infrequent approaches with short windows but has never been evaluated.
A randomized crossover trial compared incidence estimates of work-related diseases using time-sampled versus continuous-time reporting. Physicians were randomly allocated either to report every month (12/12) in 2004 and for 1 randomly chosen month (1/12) in 2005, or to the reverse sequence. Numbers of new cases of work-related disease reported per reporter per month for 1/12 and 12/12 reporting periods were compared.
Response rates were high (87%). Withdrawal from the study was higher under 12/12 reporting. The rate ratio for 1/12 versus 12/12 reporting was 1.26 (95% confidence interval = 1.11-1.42). Rates declined gradually in the 12/12 groups over the year, consistent with reporting fatigue.
Increased frequency of data collection may reduce incidence estimates.
发病率估计的准确性可能受到依赖于报告者接近频率和报告窗口期长度的偏差的影响。时间抽样策略可以实现不频繁的方法和短窗口，但从未进行过评估。
一项随机交叉试验比较了使用时间抽样与连续时间报告的工作相关疾病的发病率估计。医生被随机分配在 2004 年每月报告（12/12），在 2005 年每月报告（1/12），或者是相反的顺序。比较了每月每个报告者报告的 1/12 和 12/12 报告期的新工作相关疾病的数量。
响应率很高（87%）。12/12 报告的退出率较高。1/12 与 12/12 报告的比率为 1.26（95%置信区间=1.11-1.42）。12/12 组的发病率在一年内逐渐下降，与报告疲劳一致。
增加数据收集的频率可能会降低发病率估计。
