Hilsenbeck S G
Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Biostatistics, Miami, FL 33101.
J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(11):1201-12. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90021-g.
A survey of quality control practices was mailed to 73 central registries in the U.S. and Canada. The response rate was 88%, with respondents representing a wide range of registry characteristics and reporting strategies. While registries expressed different priorities in data use, 80% of respondents felt quality control data were important in the identification of problems. The most common method of quality control was acceptance sampling (used by 97% of respondents), and took the form of visual review, recoding and edit checking. Computer-based edit checks were almost universally used (95%). Process control methods of any sort were used by only 22% of respondents with less than 4% of registries reporting formal quantitative criteria. Sixty-one percent of respondents reported conducting one or more designed studies (e.g. reabstracting or casefinding studies) but only 20% of those made the results public. Greater emphasis should be placed on development of quantitative process controls, experimental design of quality control studies, and formal analyses and reporting of study results.
一项关于质量控制实践的调查被邮寄给了美国和加拿大的73个中央登记处。回复率为88%,受访者代表了广泛的登记处特征和报告策略。虽然登记处在数据使用方面表达了不同的优先事项,但80%的受访者认为质量控制数据对问题识别很重要。最常见的质量控制方法是验收抽样(97%的受访者使用),形式为视觉审查、重新编码和编辑检查。基于计算机的编辑检查几乎被普遍使用(95%)。只有22%的受访者使用了任何形式的过程控制方法,不到4%的登记处报告了正式的定量标准。61%的受访者报告进行了一项或多项设计研究(如重新摘要或病例查找研究),但只有20%的受访者公布了结果。应更加重视定量过程控制的开发、质量控制研究的实验设计以及研究结果的正式分析和报告。