Tillett H E, Thomas M E
J Hyg (Lond). 1981 Feb;86(1):49-58. doi: 10.1017/s002217240006873x.
Sources of information for monitoring infectious disease are routine data, special surveys and ad hoc investigations. In practice much use is necessarily made of routine notifications and laboratory records although this reporting is often incomplete and may therefore be biased. In a retrospective study of a 16-year series (up to 1968) of routine records concerning the diagnosis of gastroenteritis at one Public Health Laboratory we found it possible to identify biases. During school outbreaks of dysentery, laboratory investigation of diarrhoea increased appreciably and such response to publicity affects the use of routine data in surveillance. Although the patients examined were probably representative diagnostically, their selection may not have reflected the age incidence of disease. Valid geographical comparisons within the urban area were not feasible because medical practitioners differed in their use of laboratory facilities and in their habits of notification. Nevertheless, as far as can be established retrospectively, these data did reflect time trends in disease incidence and so had value for monitoring purposes. Several of the biases defined are likely to apply to other sets of routine data. A further communication will describe a statistical method of correcting for quantifiable bias.
监测传染病的信息来源包括常规数据、专项调查和临时调查。实际上,虽然这种报告往往不完整,因此可能存在偏差,但人们必然会大量使用常规通报和实验室记录。在一项对一家公共卫生实验室长达16年(截至1968年)的关于肠胃炎诊断的常规记录的回顾性研究中,我们发现有可能识别偏差。在学校痢疾暴发期间,对腹泻的实验室调查显著增加,这种对宣传的反应影响了监测中常规数据的使用。虽然所检查的患者在诊断上可能具有代表性,但他们的选择可能并未反映疾病的年龄发病率。在市区内进行有效的地理比较是不可行的,因为医生在实验室设施的使用和通报习惯方面存在差异。然而,就回顾性确定的情况而言,这些数据确实反映了疾病发病率的时间趋势,因此对于监测目的具有价值。所定义的几种偏差可能适用于其他常规数据集。另一篇通讯将描述一种校正可量化偏差的统计方法。