三种方法衡量烧伤样本死亡率的结果比较

摘要

[ Objective] To research the significance and relation between death rate, standardized death rate and LA50 in evaluating the results of treatment in a group of samples with burns. [Methods] The death rate, standardized death rate and LA50 were computed in every sample randomly elected from published literatures. The dependent variable was constituted by the sort order from low to high death rate and standardized death rate in all elected sampies. The independent variable was composed by the sort order from high to low LA50 in the same samples. Nonparametric tests, correlation, linear regression and curve estimation were accomplished between independent variable and dependent variable. [Results] There was significant differences (P ＜0.001) in the constitutional ratio of different body surface area burned between the various samples. There was an extraordinarily significant correlation (P ＜ 0.0001) between standardized death rate and LA50 while there was no significant correlation (P ＞0.05) between death rate and LA50- [Conclusion] There is the lack of the objectivity in comparable death rate between various samples.There is the objectivity and the veracity in comparable standardized death rate between various samples that shares the same constitutional ratio of different body surface area burned. There was an extraordinarily significant correlation between standardized death rate and LA50.%目的采用三种方法衡量同一组烧伤样本死亡率,比较各自方法的利弊和相互关系.方法按标准随机收集样本,分别计算各样本病死率、烧伤面积标准化病死率和LA50.将所有样本前两者低高排序次序分别作为变量1和因变量2,后者LA50(三种方法计算)高低序列作为自变量.采用非参数两个相关样本检验,以及相关分析、直线回归和曲线估计分别分析因变量与自变量的相互关系.结果各样本烧伤面积构成比差异显著(P＜0.001),各样本烧伤病死率缺乏可比性.本组样本烧伤面积标准化病死率低高序列与LA50高低序列显著相关(P＜0.001),样本病死率与样本LA50无显著相关(P＞0.05).结论各样本病死率缺乏可比性.烧伤面积标准化病死率消除烧伤面积构成比对样本的影响,与LA50显著相关(P＜0.001),两者各自从不同方面客观的反映烧伤早期治疗效果.