Anderson D W, Schoenberg B S, Haerer A F
Biometry and Field Studies Branch, National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(4):339-45. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90141-2.
This article addresses three questions to be answered during the planning of prevalence surveys of chronic disorders in geographically defined populations: (a) Should personal interviews be used alone (i.e. without accompanying physical examinations) to find and confirm cases in a household population? (b) As an alternative means of identifying cases, is it adequate to review patient records from hospitals and clinics serving the population to be surveyed? (c) Should population members residing in institutions of long-term care be made ineligible for the anticipated survey? Data on major neurologic disorders, obtained from the Copiah County Study, are used to suggest caution in answering any of these questions in the affirmative, since in particular circumstances the consequences for the intended research may be serious or even disastrous. For example, with 42% of Parkinson's disease cases diagnosed for the first time during the study, a casefinding approach solely through medical-care providers would have been highly questionable for that disorder.
（a）在家庭人群中查找和确诊病例时，是否应仅使用个人访谈（即不进行体格检查）？（b）作为识别病例的替代方法，查阅为被调查人群服务的医院和诊所的患者记录是否足够？（c）长期护理机构中的居民是否应被排除在预期调查之外？从科普亚县研究中获得的关于主要神经系统疾病的数据表明，对这些问题中的任何一个给予肯定回答时都应谨慎，因为在特定情况下，对预期研究的影响可能很严重甚至是灾难性的。例如，在该研究期间首次诊断出42%的帕金森病病例，仅通过医疗服务提供者进行病例查找的方法对于该疾病来说将非常值得怀疑。
