Lew R A, Day C L, Harrist T J, Wood W C, Mihm M C
JAMA. 1983 Feb 4;249(5):641-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.249.5.641.
"Mystified" best characterizes the feeling of many physicians as they read the results of a multivariate analysis. Much of the mystery disappears when two items are shown: (1) explicit tabulations revealing how each factor selected by the analysis relates to outcome, both singly and jointly with other factors; and (2) alternative models generated by repeating the analysis after removing the most important variables one by one from the list of factors that was initially analyzed. In this way, one can determine which variables are good stand-ins or substitutes for the best variables in the initial analysis. Showing these substitutes may expose exaggerations in benefits attributed to a particular therapy (ie, elective regional node dissection for clinical stage I malignant melanoma). We have applied these guidelines to examples in the literature, particularly studies of malignant melanoma.
“困惑”最能形容许多医生阅读多变量分析结果时的感受。当展示以下两项内容时,许多谜团就会消失:(1)详细列表,揭示分析中所选的每个因素如何单独以及与其他因素共同与结果相关;(2)通过从最初分析的因素列表中逐一去除最重要的变量后重复分析所生成的替代模型。通过这种方式,可以确定哪些变量是初始分析中最佳变量的良好替身或替代品。展示这些替代品可能会揭示归因于特定疗法(例如,临床I期恶性黑色素瘤的选择性区域淋巴结清扫术)的益处存在夸大之处。我们已将这些指导原则应用于文献中的实例,尤其是恶性黑色素瘤的研究。