Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis ›› 2023, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (10): 957-966.doi: 10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20230141
• Original Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
Chen Daiquan, Lin Shufang, Dai Zhisong, Zhou Yinfa, Chen Kun()
Received:
2023-05-04
Online:
2023-10-10
Published:
2023-10-07
Contact:
Chen Kun, Email: Supported by:
CLC Number:
Chen Daiquan, Lin Shufang, Dai Zhisong, Zhou Yinfa, Chen Kun. Construction and validation of a nomogram for predicting unfavorable treatment outcomes among patients with rifampicin-sensitive tuberculosis[J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2023, 45(10): 957-966. doi: 10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20230141
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.zgflzz.cn/EN/10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20230141
特征 | 总体(75063例) | 训练集(37532例) | 验证集(37531例) | 统计检验值 | P值 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
性别[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=0.538 | 0.463 | ||||
男性 | 55151(73.47) | 27531(73.35) | 27620(73.59) | |||
女性 | 19912(26.53) | 10001(26.65) | 9911(26.41) | |||
年龄(岁,$\bar{x} \pm s$) | 48.09±17.69 | 48.13±17.75 | 48.06±17.64 | t=0.496 | 0.620 | |
民族[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=2.560 | 0.110 | ||||
汉族 | 73581(98.03) | 36760(97.94) | 36821(98.11) | |||
少数民族 | 1482(1.97) | 772(2.06) | 710(1.89) | |||
职业[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=2.420 | 0.789 | ||||
企事业单位 | 1946(2.59) | 942(2.51) | 1004(2.68) | |||
学生及儿童 | 2824(3.76) | 1413(3.77) | 1411(3.76) | |||
公共场所及商业服务 | 2554(3.40) | 1292(3.44) | 1262(3.36) | |||
体力劳动 | 45169(60.18) | 22578(60.16) | 22591(60.19) | |||
退休和待业 | 17927(23.88) | 8982(23.93) | 8945(23.83) | |||
职业不详 | 4643(6.19) | 2325(6.19) | 2318(6.18) | |||
现住址类型[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=0.387 | 0.534 | ||||
本县区 | 57462(76.55) | 28768(76.65) | 28694(76.45) | |||
非本县区 | 17601(23.45) | 8764(23.35) | 8837(23.55) | |||
户籍地址类型[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=0.002 | 0.967 | ||||
本地 | 48449(64.54) | 24228(64.55) | 24221(64.54) | |||
外地 | 26614(35.46) | 13304(35.45) | 13310(35.46) | |||
现住址所属地市[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=13.477 | 0.096 | ||||
福州市 | 14371(19.15) | 7183(19.14) | 7188(19.15) | |||
厦门市 | 7873(10.49) | 3926(10.46) | 3947(10.52) | |||
莆田市 | 5686(7.57) | 2808(7.48) | 2878(7.67) | |||
三明市 | 4155(5.54) | 2049(5.46) | 2106(5.61) | |||
泉州市 | 18915(25.20) | 9442(25.16) | 9473(25.24) | |||
漳州市 | 8943(11.91) | 4434(11.81) | 4509(12.01) | |||
南平市 | 4757(6.34) | 2486(6.62) | 2271(6.05) | |||
龙岩市 | 4898(6.52) | 2432(6.48) | 2466(6.57) | |||
宁德市 | 5465(7.28) | 2772(7.39) | 2693(7.18) | |||
患者发现方式[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=1.699 | 0.192 | ||||
主动发现 | 859(1.14) | 449(1.20) | 410(1.09) | |||
被动发现 | 74204(98.86) | 37083(98.80) | 37121(98.91) | |||
合并症[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=0.401 | 0.526 | ||||
无 | 66525(88.63) | 33291(88.70) | 33234(88.55) | |||
有 | 8538(11.37) | 4241(11.30) | 4297(11.45) | |||
治疗分类[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=1.189 | 0.275 | ||||
初治 | 70545(93.98) | 35309(94.08) | 35236(93.89) | |||
复治 | 4518(6.02) | 2223(5.92) | 2295(6.11) | |||
初诊痰菌结果[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=0.536 | 0.464 | ||||
阴性 | 42170(56.18) | 21035(56.05) | 21135(56.31) | |||
阳性 | 32893(43.82) | 16497(43.95) | 16396(43.69) | |||
合并其他部位结核[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=0.727 | 0.394 | ||||
否 | 68291(90.98) | 34112(90.89) | 34179(91.07) | |||
是 | 6772(9.02) | 3420(9.11) | 3352(8.93) | |||
治疗转归[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=0.084 | 0.772 | ||||
成功治疗 | 68191(90.85) | 34084(90.81) | 34107(90.88) | |||
不良转归 | 6872(9.15) | 3448(9.19) | 3424(9.12) |
因素 | 转归良好(34084例) | 转归不良(3448例) | 统计检验值 | P值 |
---|---|---|---|---|
性别[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=101.526 | <0.001 | ||
男性 | 24752(72.62) | 2779(80.60) | ||
女性 | 9332(27.38) | 669(19.40) | ||
年龄(岁,$\bar{x} \pm s$) | 47.28±17.54 | 56.53±17.63 | t=29.379 | <0.001 |
民族[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=2.446 | 0.118 | ||
汉族 | 33370(97.91) | 3390(98.32) | ||
少数民族 | 714(2.09) | 58(1.68) | ||
职业[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=171.953 | <0.001 | ||
企事业单位 | 902(2.65) | 40(1.16) | ||
学生及儿童 | 1390(4.08) | 23(0.67) | ||
公共场所及商业服务 | 1216(3.57) | 76(2.20) | ||
体力劳动 | 20357(59.72) | 2221(64.41) | ||
退休和待业 | 8067(23.67) | 915(26.54) | ||
职业不详 | 2152(6.31) | 173(5.02) | ||
现住址类型[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=2.803 | 0.094 | ||
本县区 | 26085(76.53) | 2683(77.81) | ||
非本县区 | 7999(23.47) | 765(22.19) | ||
户籍地址类型[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=23.123 | <0.001 | ||
本地 | 21873(64.17) | 2355(68.30) | ||
外地 | 12211(35.83) | 1093(31.70) | ||
患者发现方式[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=9.498 | 0.002 | ||
主动发现 | 427(1.25) | 22(0.64) | ||
被动发现 | 33657(98.75) | 3426(99.36) | ||
合并症[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=33.730 | <0.001 | ||
无 | 30336(89.00) | 2955(85.70) | ||
有 | 3748(11.00) | 493(14.30) | ||
治疗分类[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=190.426 | <0.001 | ||
初治 | 32248(94.61) | 3061(88.78) | ||
复治 | 1836(5.39) | 387(11.22) | ||
初诊痰菌结果[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=47.269 | <0.001 | ||
阴性 | 19294(56.61) | 1741(50.49) | ||
阳性 | 14790(43.39) | 1707(49.51) | ||
合并其他部位结核[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=2.351 | 0.125 | ||
无 | 30953(90.81) | 3159(91.62) | ||
有 | 3131(9.19) | 289(8.38) | ||
现住址所属地市[例数(构成比,%)] | χ2=219.836 | <0.001 | ||
福州市 | 6509(19.10) | 674(19.55) | ||
厦门市 | 3680(10.79) | 246(7.13) | ||
莆田市 | 2416(7.09) | 392(11.37) | ||
三明市 | 1874(5.50) | 175(5.08) | ||
泉州市 | 8537(25.05) | 905(26.25) | ||
漳州市 | 3957(11.61) | 477(13.83) | ||
南平市 | 2350(6.89) | 136(3.94) | ||
龙岩市 | 2157(6.33) | 275(7.98) | ||
宁德市 | 2604(7.64) | 168(4.87) |
因素 | β值 | s | Wald χ2值 | P值 | OR(95%CI)值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
女性 | -0.259 | 0.046 | 31.672 | <0.001 | 0.772(0.705~0.845) |
年龄 | 0.027 | 0.001 | 492.773 | <0.001 | 1.028(1.025~1.030) |
职业(以“企事业单位职工”为参考水平) | |||||
学生及儿童 | -0.356 | 0.267 | 1.771 | 0.183 | 0.701(0.415~1.183) |
公共场所及商业服务 | 0.403 | 0.202 | 3.981 | 0.046 | 1.496(1.007~2.223) |
体力劳动 | 0.363 | 0.166 | 4.808 | 0.028 | 1.438(1.039~1.989) |
退休和待业 | 0.553 | 0.168 | 10.825 | 0.001 | 1.738(1.250~2.416) |
职业不详 | 0.506 | 0.182 | 7.737 | 0.005 | 1.658(1.161~2.369) |
外地户籍 | 0.077 | 0.045 | 3.005 | 0.083 | 1.080(0.990~1.179) |
有合并症 | 0.102 | 0.054 | 3.570 | 0.059 | 1.108(0.996~1.232) |
复治 | 0.594 | 0.061 | 94.444 | <0.001 | 1.810(1.606~2.041) |
初诊痰菌阳性 | 0.073 | 0.037 | 3.793 | 0.051 | 1.075(1.000~1.157) |
现住址所属地市(以“福州市”为参考水平) | |||||
厦门市 | -0.195 | 0.079 | 6.045 | 0.014 | 0.823(0.704~0.961) |
莆田市 | 0.499 | 0.076 | 43.304 | <0.001 | 1.647(1.420~1.911) |
三明市 | -0.050 | 0.095 | 0.283 | 0.595 | 0.951(0.790~1.145) |
泉州市 | 0.177 | 0.061 | 8.486 | 0.004 | 1.194(1.060~1.345) |
漳州市 | 0.147 | 0.070 | 4.366 | 0.037 | 1.158(1.009~1.329) |
南平市 | -0.560 | 0.102 | 29.841 | <0.001 | 0.571(0.468~0.699) |
龙岩市 | 0.234 | 0.083 | 7.892 | 0.005 | 1.264(1.073~1.488) |
宁德市 | -0.355 | 0.094 | 14.263 | <0.001 | 0.701(0.583~0.843) |
[1] | World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2022. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2022. |
[2] | 黄建英, 钟球, 周琳, 等. 中国肺结核治疗失败影响因素的Meta 分析. 中华疾病控制杂志, 2014, 18(2): 102-107. |
[3] | 肖月, 饶正远, 夏岚, 等. 2011—2015年四川省涂阴肺结核流行特征与治疗转归结果分析. 预防医学情报杂志, 2018, 34(9): 1135-1141. |
[4] | 蒋远东, 马志, 腾子豪, 等. 2010—2019年新疆伊宁市初治涂阳肺结核患者流行特征及治疗转归分析. 现代预防医学, 2021, 48(23): 4234-4239. |
[5] | 龚新记, 文进, 李月华, 等. 3071例成人新登记涂阳肺结核患者治疗结局分析. 新疆医科大学学报, 2020, 43(11): 1514-1517. doi:10.3639/j.issn.1009-5551.2020.11.025. |
[6] | 黎永华, 李朝勇, 黄隆. 三亚市老年肺结核患者治疗失败的影响因素调查分析. 中国卫生统计, 2017, 34(1): 85-86, 90. |
[7] | 尤莉莉, 陈新月, 杨凌鹤, 等. 国家基本公共卫生服务项目实施十年:挑战与建议. 中国全科医学, 2022, 25(26): 3221-3231. doi:10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0406. |
[8] | 刘小秋. 我国肺结核患者治疗管理的若干意见. 中国防痨杂志, 2019, 41(9): 917-919. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2019.09.002. |
[9] | 李本春, 王应军, 曹晓玉. 肺结核患者服药依从性预测模型的建立. 现代医学, 2022, 50(5): 529-535. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-7562.2022.05.001. |
[10] | 李颜玲, 陈洁, 徐梦云, 等. 肺结核患者治疗不成功风险预测模型的构建与验证[J/OL]. 中国预防医学杂志, 2023: 1-9 [2023-04-04]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.4529.r.20230217.1656.010.html. [网络预发表]. |
[11] |
Yan H, Guo L, Pang Y, et al. Clinical characteristics and predictive model of pulmonary tuberculosis patients with pulmonary fungal coinfection. BMC Pulm Med, 2023, 23(1):56. doi:10.1186/s12890-023-02344-4.
pmid: 36750804 |
[12] | Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KIE, et al. Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model. BMJ, 2020, 368:m441. doi:10.1136/bmj.m441. |
[13] | 中华人民共和国卫生健康委员会. 中国结核病预防控制工作技术规范(2020年版). 国卫办疾控函〔2020〕279号. 2020-09-14. |
[14] | Peetluk LS, Ridolfi FM, Rebeiro PF, et al. Systematic review of prediction models for pulmonary tuberculosis treatment outcomes in adults. BMJ Open, 2021, 11(3):e044687. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044687. |
[15] | 梁达, 赵晓银, 商越, 等. 青海省结核病患者治疗结局影响因素分析及贝叶斯网络模型研究. 疾病监测, 2022, 37(2): 210-213. doi:10.3784/jbjc.202103230151. |
[16] | Chaves Torres NM, Quijano Rodríguez JJ, Porras Andrade PS, et al. Factors predictive of the success of tuberculosis treatment: A systematic review with meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2019, 14(12):e0226507. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226507. |
[17] | 闫银锁, 许琰, 倪新兰, 等. 肺结核患者治疗结局影响因素多水平模型分析. 中国卫生统计, 2021, 38(1): 25-27. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-3674.2021.01.007. |
[18] | Peetluk LS, Rebeiro PF, Ridolfi FM, et al. A Clinical Prediction Model for Unsuccessful Pulmonary Tuberculosis Treatment Outcomes. Clin Infect Dis, 2022, 74(6):973-982. doi:10.1093/cid/ciab598. |
[19] |
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making, 2006, 26(6):565-574. doi:10.1177/0272989X06295361.
pmid: 17099194 |
[20] |
Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. A Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Prediction Model for Prostate Biopsy Risk Stratification. JAMA Oncol, 2018, 4(5):678-685. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5667.
pmid: 29470570 |
[21] | Liu X, Thompson J, Dong H, et al. Digital adherence technologies to improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes in China: a cluster-randomised superiority trial. Lancet Glob Health, 2023, 11(5):e693-e703. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00068-2. |
[1] | Teng Chong, Wang Yulan, Liu Liu, Zhang Fang, Huang Fei, Li Tao, Zhao Bing, Zhao Yanlin, Ou Xichao. Analysis of the epidemiological characteristics and prediction for the reported incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis in Dongcheng District, Beijing from 2013 to 2022 [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2024, 46(4): 397-402. |
[2] | Gulina Badeerhan, Liu Nianqiang, Yipaer Aihaiti, Wang Le, Wang Senlu, Zulikatiayi Abudula, Wang Mingzhe, Zhang Jing, Wang Xinqi, Bi Hongbo. The effect of GeneXpert MTB/RIF detection technology in tuberculosis prevention and control program in Xinjiang [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2024, 46(2): 173-177. |
[3] | Liu Mei, Wu Xia, Gu Xu, Li Nana, Zhang Wanmin, Zhang Xiaoke, Lan Yuanbo. Evaluation of the performance of InnowaveDX MTB/RIF in detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2024, 46(1): 70-74. |
[4] | Kong Hanhan, Zhang Jiaohong, Zeng Jianfeng, Cao Jing. Construction and validation of frailty risk prediction model in elderly patients with pulmonary tuberculosis [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2024, 46(1): 85-91. |
[5] | Zhou Wenyong, Wen Zexuan, Gao Mengxian, Li Tao, Zhang Hui, Wang Weibing. Prediction of the effectiveness and impact of the free healthcare policy for tuberculosis in China [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2023, 45(9): 845-856. |
[6] | Ren Feilin, Liu Xiaoqi, Jin Meihua, Sun Xiuxiu. Study on the predictive effect of seasonal auto regressive integrated moving average model on the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2023, 45(5): 514-519. |
[7] | Sun Minghao, Duan Yuqi, Zheng Liang, Yu Shengnan, Cheng Chuanlong, Zuo Hui, Chen Ming, Li Xiujun. Application of ARIMA, ARIMAX, and NGO-LSTM models in forecasting the incidence of tuberculosis cases in Liaocheng City, Shandong Province [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2023, 45(12): 1177-1185. |
[8] | Lyu Tong, Yang Yunbin, Pan Ying, Cheng Yuyu, Li Zichao, Xu Lin. Analysis of economic burden and influencing factors of rifampin-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis in Yunnan Province [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2023, 45(11): 1031-1037. |
[9] | KANG Wan-li, LI Tian-jing, WANG Sai-sai, LI Chang-hua, ZHAO Qiu-yue, ZHENG Su-hua, LIU Yang. Study on the trend and prediction of reported incidence of national active pulmonary tuberculosis in China [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2022, 44(7): 681-684. |
[10] | ZHUANG Li, LU Zhen-hui, CEN Jun, MA Zi-feng, LI Cui, JIANG Yu-wei, ZHANG Hui-yong, ZHANG Shun-xian. Establishment and prediction of autoregressive integrated moving average model of monthly reported deaths of pulmonary tuberculosis in China [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2022, 44(4): 375-380. |
[11] | WANG Wei, YE Yi-nong, LIN Dong-zi, ZHONG Qian-hong, HUANG Fei, DU Fang-fang, CHENG Shi-ming, ZHOU Jie, ZHANG Xi-lin, ZHONG Qiu. Analysis of epidemiological characteristics of rifampicin resistance tuberculosis in Foshan City, Guangdong Province, 2011-2020 [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2022, 44(2): 187-192. |
[12] | YANG Xiao-li, HE Bing, WANG Jiao-lei, ZHANG Yun-yun, ZHANG Chun-xia, LI Yue, LI Jian-jun, SHI Wen-tao. Diagnostic value of GeneXpert MTB/RIF in detecting patients with coal workers’ pneumoconiosis complicated with pulmonary tuberculosis [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2021, 43(8): 821-825. |
[13] | CHANG Jun-li, ZHANG Jian-hong, ZHANG Ying, ZHANG Hai-fang, FAN Peng-fei, LI Qiu-hua, DING Xue-ling. Investigation and analysis of a cluster epidemic of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis in a school [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2021, 43(7): 751-754. |
[14] | LEI Yu, HE Li-qian, ZHANG Guang-chuan, LAI Keng, XIE Wei, DU Yu-hua. Establishment of ARIMA model and its application on the prediction of pulmonary tuberculosis incidence in Guangzhou [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2021, 43(6): 569-575. |
[15] | SHU Wei, GE Qi-ping, HUANG Xue-rui, MA Li-ping, JI Bin-ying, CHEN Yu-hui, CHEN Xiao-you, JIANG Guang-lu, XIE Li, LI Bo, CHEN Sheng-yu, CHEN Sen-lin, YAN Jun-ping, SHI Lian, CHEN Ling, LI You-lun, XI Xiu-e, LIU Qian-ying, YAN Xing-lu, WANG Fei, WANG Fu-rong, WU Xiang, ZHANG Peng, LENG Xue-yan, CAO Wen-li, ZHANG Hai-qing, CUI Hong-zhe, YANG Cheng-qing, WU Chao, LI Juan, LI Hua, SUN Yu-xian, ZHANG Li-jie, XIE Shi-heng, NING Yu-jia, TIAN Xi-zhong, DU Jian, LI Liang, GAO Wei-wei. Analysis of treatment outcomes of retreated pulmonary tuberculosis patients with isoniazid-resistance and rifampin-resistance [J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2021, 43(4): 322-327. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||