Roman E, Beral V, Inskip H, McDowall M, Adelstein A
Stat Med. 1984 Jan-Mar;3(1):7-14. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780030103.
Proportional mortality analyses are traditionally considered to be unreliable because they lack information on persons at risk. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) are often used in preference to proportional mortality ratios ( PMRs ) even when the denominator or numerator of rates is known to be biased. Examination of data from 30 randomly selected occupational units described by the U.K. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys ( OPCS ) revealed, however, that age-standardized cause-specific SMRs and PMRs have an almost constant relationship: the ratio of the cause-specific PMR closely approximating the all-cause SMR of the group under consideration. Hence, a PMR above 100 almost always indicates that the corresponding cause-specific SMR is greater than the all-cause SMR (and vice versa). Furthermore, approximately 70 per cent of conditions with significantly high PMRs above 200 have corresponding SMRs which are also significantly high. When cautiously interpreted, the PRM may, therefore, be a useful indicator of an increased frequency of disease in a particular occupational or other group.
传统上认为比例死亡率分析不可靠,因为它们缺乏关于风险人群的信息。即使已知率的分母或分子存在偏差,标准化死亡率比(SMR)通常也比比例死亡率比(PMR)更受青睐。然而,对英国人口普查与调查办公室(OPCS)描述的30个随机选择的职业单位的数据进行检查后发现,年龄标准化的特定病因SMR和PMR具有几乎恒定的关系:特定病因PMR的比值与所考虑群体的全因SMR密切近似。因此,PMR高于100几乎总是表明相应的特定病因SMR大于全因SMR(反之亦然)。此外,PMR显著高于200的疾病中,约70%相应的SMR也显著高。因此,经过谨慎解释后,PMR可能是特定职业或其他群体中疾病频率增加的有用指标。