• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Heterogeneity in dental research: A comparison of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.
【24h】

Heterogeneity in dental research: A comparison of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.

机译：牙科研究中的异质性：横截面研究和纵向研究的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Cross-sectional studies are widely used to identify potential risk factors for disease, and to provide estimates of exposure-disease (E-D) associations for use in policy making. Given this reliance on cross-sectional studies, this study aimed to determine whether systematic differences occurred when E-D associations were estimated cross-sectionally versus longitudinally. Data from the Piedmont 65+ Dental Study, a longitudinal study of dental disease among North Carolina elders, were used. Persons examined at 0, 18 and 36 months were included (n = 430). Twenty potential risk factors each were identified for tooth loss, periodontal disease and coronal caries, and E-D associations were estimated. Bivariate prevalence odds ratios were estimated using prevalent disease measured at 18 months, while bivariate incidence odds ratios were estimated using incident disease that occurred from 0 to 18 months, and from 18 to 36 months. Pairs of prevalence odds ratios (OR{dollar}sb{lcub}rm C{rcub}{dollar}) and incidence odds ratios (OR{dollar}sb{lcub}rm L{rcub}{dollar}) were compared. The outcome of interest was the ratio of each prevalence odds ratio to its corresponding incidence odds ratio (OR{dollar}sb{lcub}rm C{rcub}{dollar}/OR{dollar}sb{lcub}rm L{rcub}{dollar}). Overall, prevalence odds ratios were almost twice as large as incidence odds ratios (Mean Ratio (MR) = 1.9, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.5-2.4). Specifically, prevalence odds ratios were 39% larger than incidence odds ratios for tooth loss (MR = 1.4, 95% CI = 0.97-2.0), 53% larger for periodontal disease (MR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.2), and 238% larger for caries (MR = 3.4, 95% CI = 2.2-5.1). Putative causal exposures were somewhat less likely to be overestimated by prevalence data (MR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.2-2.7), compared to presumed non-causal exposures (MR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.5-2.7). The over-estimation in prevalence odds ratios compared to incidence odds ratios indicates that the assessment of risk factors using prevalence data can be quite tenuous for the oral conditions studied.
机译：横断面研究被广泛用于识别疾病的潜在危险因素，并提供暴露-疾病（E-D）关联的估计以用于决策。考虑到这种对横断面研究的依赖，本研究旨在确定当E-D关联横断面与纵向估计时是否发生系统差异。使用了来自北卡罗来纳州老年人的牙齿疾病纵向研究Piedmont 65+ Dental Study的数据。包括在0、18和36个月接受检查的人员（n = 430）。分别确定了二十种潜在的牙齿脱落，牙周病和冠状龋的危险因素，并估计了E-D关联。使用在18个月时测得的流行病来估计双变量患病率，而使用在0到18个月以及18到36个月内发生的疾病来估算双变量患病率。比较了患病几率比（OR {dollar} sb {lcub} rm C {rcub} {dollar}）和发生几率比（OR {dollar} sb {lcub} rm L {rcub} {dollar}）。感兴趣的结果是每个患病几率比与其对应的发生几率之比（OR {dollar} sb {lcub} rm C {rcub} {dollar} / OR {dollar} sb {lcub} rm L {rcub} {美元}）。总体而言，患病几率几乎是发病几率的两倍（平均值比（MR）= 1.9，95％置信区间（CI）= 1.5-2.4）。具体来说，患牙率的患病率比（MR = 1.4，95％CI = 0.97-2.0）大39％，而牙周疾病的患病率（MR = 1.5，95％CI = 1.1-2.2）大53％，而龋齿则大238％（MR = 3.4，95％CI = 2.2-5.1）。与假定的非因果暴露（MR = 2.0，95％CI = 1.5-2.7）相比，流行率数据（MR = 1.8，95％CI = 1.2-2.7）高估了可能的因果暴露。与患病几率之比相比，患病几率之高估表明，对于所研究的口腔疾病，使用患病率数据对危险因素进行的评估可能非常脆弱。

著录项

  • 作者

    Isong, Umo O.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.;

  • 授予单位 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.;
  • 学科 Biology Biostatistics.; Gerontology.; Health Sciences Dentistry.; Health Sciences Public Health.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 1998
  • 页码 133 p.
  • 总页数 133
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 生物数学方法;老年病学;口腔科学;预防医学、卫生学;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号