摘要
倾向性评分法可以提高临床试验的效率和准确性,已被广泛应用于疗效评价对比、疾病发生因素探索、药品不良反应监测等多个领域。目前倾向性评分法在中医药单种疗法干预、复杂干预及中西医结合干预研究中均有一定应用前景,是作为真实世界研究的良好辅助工具。通过分析中医药临床研究特点,认为:1)倾向性评分法的应用能够加快中医药临床疗效评价研究的进度,有助于高级别临床证据的收集,促进中医药疗法的发展与推广;2)大数据资源背景下,倾向性评分法在辅助中医药处方分析、药物安全及不良反应监测、中医大型队列研究方面具有良好的应用前景;3)在临床实践过程中,倾向性评分法可能面临方法选择不当、混杂因素判断或测量有误、结果解释或外推不合理等问题。
Propensity score can improve the efficiency and accuracy of clinical trials,and has been widely used in many fields such as comparison of efficacy evaluation,exploration of disease occurrence factors,and monitoring of adverse drug reactions.At present,the propensity scoe has application prospects in traditional Chinese medicine(TCM)monotherapy intervention,complex intervention and integrated Chinese and Western medicine intervention research,and it is a good auxiliary tool for real-world study.By analysing the cha-racteristics of clinical research in TCM,the authors believed that,firstly,the application of propensity score can acce-lerate the progress of clinical efficacy evaluation research in TCM,contribute to the collection of high-level clinical evidence,and promote the development and promotion of TCM therapies;Secondly,under the background of big data resources,propensity score has good application prospects in assisting TCM prescription analysis,drug safety and adverse reaction monitoring,and large-scale cohort studies in TCM;thirdly,in the process of clinical practice,propensity scoring method may face problems such as inappropriate method selection,incorrect judgement or measurement of confounding factors,and unreasonable interpretation or extrapolation of results.
作者
陈曦
杨玉平
何克林
CHEN Xi;YANG Yuping;HE Kelin(The Third School of Clinical Medicine/School of Rehabilitation Medicine,Zhejiang Chinese Medical University,Hangzhou,310053;The Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University)
出处
《中医杂志》
CSCD
北大核心
2024年第21期2269-2274,2280,共7页
Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine
基金
浙江省中医药科技计划(2022ZQ047,2022ZA090)。
关键词
倾向性评分法
观察性研究
中医药研究
混杂因素
propensity score
observational study
traditional Chinese medicine study
confounding factors