| 中国大陆三种流感监测数据的时效性比较 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 秦康,张业武,张鹏,李言飞,马家奇.中国大陆三种流感监测数据的时效性比较[J].中华疾病控制杂志,2019,23(4):387-391. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 秦康 张业武 张鹏 李言飞 马家奇 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 102206 北京市, 中国疾病预防控制中心公共卫生监测与信息服务中心 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 国家自然科学基金U1611264国家科技重大专项2017ZX10303401-005 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 目的 评估中国大陆三种流感监测数据(法定传染病直报系统报告的流感病例数、流感样病例占门急诊病例总数百分比(influenza-like illness consultation rate，ILI%)和流感病毒检出率)的时效性，为今后流感监测和预警工作提供科学依据。 方法 分别针对2017-2018年度中国大陆北方和南方的三种流感监测数据，采用高峰对比、时间交叉相关分析以及预警分析方法比较时效性。 结果 2017-2018年度三种流感监测数据反映的流感流行趋势大体一致。但三种流感监测数据具有不同的时效性。ILI%在预警北方的第一个流行高峰的能力上欠佳，分别比流感报告病例数和流感病毒检出率滞后6周和9周，南方第一个流行高峰的最早预警指标是ILI%，分别比流感报告病例数和流感病毒检出率提前4周和7周；而三种监测数据在南、北方第二个流行高峰的预警时间上相差不大(0~2周)。 结论 中国大陆三种流感监测数据均能反映流感流行趋势，综合使用三种监测数据，能够更加及时、准确地预警流感流行。
|
| 关 键 词： | 流感 监测数据 时效性 比较 |
| 收稿时间： | 2018-10-29 |
Comparing the timeliness of three types of influenza surveillance data in mainland China |
| |
| Affiliation: | Public Health Surveillance and Information Service Center, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 102206, China |
| |
| Abstract: | Objective To evaluate the timeliness of the three sets of influenza surveillance data (influenza reported cases from Nationwide Notifiable Infectious Diseases Reporting Information System (NIDRIS), influenza-like illness consultation rate (ILI%) and influenza virus positive rate from Chinese Influenza Surveillance Information System) in mainland China. Methods The three sets of influenza surveillance data of North and South China from 2017 to 2018 were compared using peak comparison, cross correlation and Early Aberration Reporting System C3 method. Results The influenza epidemic trends reflected by the three sets of influenza surveillance weekly data from 2017 to 2018 were generally consistent and significantly correlated. However, the three sets of data had different timeliness. From 2017 to 2018, ILI% in the North was not timely at alarming the first epidemic peak, which was 6 weeks and 9 weeks later than influenza cases from NIDRIS and positive rate of influenza virus respectively. While in the South, ILI% was the most sensitive indicator, which was 4 weeks and 7 weeks earlier than influenza cases from NIDRIS and positive rate of influenza virus respectively. However, the three sets of data had little difference in the timeliness of the second epidemic peak both in the North and South. Conclusions The three sets of influenza surveillance data in mainland China could all roughly reflected the epidemic trend of influenza. After comparing the timeliness, a combination of influenza reported cases from NIDRIS together with ILI% and influenza virus positive rate could improve timeliness and accuracy for early warning of influenza. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
| 点击此处可从《中华疾病控制杂志》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《中华疾病控制杂志》下载全文 |
|
