Effect of partial recording protocols on estimates of prevalence of periodontal disease
Effect of partial recording protocols on estimates of prevalence of periodontal disease
复制标题
DOI：
10.1902/jop.2005.76.2.262
复制
发表时间：
2005-02-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Albandar, JM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Susin, C;Kingman, A;Albandar, JM
背景：这项研究的目的是评估流行病学研究中不同部分记录方案(PRP)导致的牙周附着丧失患病率估计的漏报程度，并得出一个修正因子来调整这种偏差。方法：研究样本包括1,460名14-103岁的齿状牙，他们接受了临床检查，以评估每个牙齿6个部位的临床附着丧失。结果：所有部分方案都低估了依恋缺失的患病率。任何全口PRP的偏差估计都小于半口设计的相应部位组合PRP的偏差估计。在所有四个象限中，使用牙齿的近中颊(MB)、中颊(B)和远舌(DL)部位的PRP在七个被评估的PRP中显示出最小的偏差和最高的敏感性，在附件丧失严重程度的范围内是一致的。含有DL位点的三个位点的PRP产生的偏倚比包括远端颊(DB)位点的三个位点的PRP产生的偏差要小。与两个部位MB、B半口PRP相比，三个部位半口PRP对2~5 mm附着缺失阈值的敏感度提高3%~12%。结论：在研究人群中，附着缺失的评估偏差受部分记录设计和评估部位的类型和数量的影响，也受附着缺失严重程度的影响。在大型调查中选择部分记录方法时，应考虑这些因素。此外，应计算和报告为调整因使用部分系统而产生的偏差而设计的通货膨胀系数，以便与其他调查结果进行比较更有意义。
Background: The aim of this study was to assess the degree of underreporting in the estimates of prevalence of periodontal attachment loss due to different partial recording protocols (PRP) in epidemiological studies, and to derive a correction factor to adjust for this bias.Methods: The study sample included 1,460 dentate persons 14 to 103 years old who were examined clinically to assess the clinical attachment loss at six sites per tooth. Seven PRP based on full-mouth or half-mouth designs were assessed, and the bias and sensitivity in the assessment of attachment loss prevalence for these protocols were assessed.Results: All partial protocols underestimated the prevalence of attachment loss. Bias estimates for any full-mouth PRP were smaller than those for the corresponding site-combination PRP for the half-mouth design. The PRP using the mesio-buccal (MB), mid-buccal (B), and disto-lingual (DL) sites of teeth in all four quadrants showed the smallest bias and highest sensitivity of prevalence estimates among the seven PRP evaluated, uniformly across the range of attachment loss severity level. The three site PRP incorporating the DL site produced less bias than the three site PRP including the disto-buccal (DB) site. There was a 3% to 12% gain in sensitivity for 2 to 5 mm attachment loss thresholds for the three site half-mouth PRP compared with the two site MB, B half-mouth PRP.Conclusions: The bias in the assessment of attachment loss is influenced by the partial recording design and the type and number of sites assessed, and is also influenced by the severity of attachment loss in the study population. These factors should be considered when selecting a partial recording method in large surveys. Furthermore, inflation factors designed to adjust for the bias due to the use of partial systems should be calculated and reported so that comparisons of results with other surveys are more meaningful.