论文部分内容阅读
１９９２年国家颁发了“职工工伤与职业病致残程度鉴定标准（试行）”，其中尘肺致残分级判定基准是肺功能损伤程度。列出的六项指标中ＦＶＣ、ＦＥＶ１、ＭＶＶ和ＤＬｃｏ是以实测值与预计值百分数为判断标准。由于不同的预计值可以得到完全不同的结果，因此如何选用预计值公式是一个重要问题。为了能在鉴定工作中选好预计值，本文对六个条件相似的矿工预计值的差异进行了比较。选择１００例煤矿工人进行测定，将其有关参数分别代入六个公式得到预计值，计算出实测值占预计值百分比后进行比较。结果表明ＦＶＣ变异较小（标准差为９．９—１４．１）、ＭＶＶ变异最大（９．９５—２１．１）、ＦＥＶ１居二者之间。经Ｆ检验，ＦＶＣ、ＦＥＶ１和ＭＶＶ的Ｆ值分别为４．８８、７．３２、４５．９，有非常显著差异（Ｐ＜０．０１）。六公式间进行两两比较，ＦＶＣ公式６与公式１、２、３、５间有显著差异（Ｐ＜０．０５），ＦＥＶ１公式５与另五个公式间有显著差异（Ｐ＜０．０５），ＭＶＶ公式除１与６、２与３之间无差异外，其余公式间均有非常显著差异（Ｐ＜０．０１）。此外，由ＦＥＶ１代入公式推导的ＭＶＶ与实测ＭＶＶ比较结果发现推导ＭＶＶ非常显著地高于实测值（Ｐ＜０．０１）。本文结果表明即?
In 1992, the state awarded the “Work Injury and Occupational Diseases Disability Appraisal Standards (Trial)”, in which pneumoconiosis disability grading criteria is the degree of lung function damage. Among the six indicators listed, FVC, FEV1, MVV and DLco are judged based on the percentage of actual value and expected value. Since different estimates can lead to completely different results, it is an important question how to choose the expected value formula. In order to be able to choose the expected value in the appraisal work, this paper compares the difference of miners’ expectation values of six similar conditions. 100 mine workers were selected for measurement, and the relevant parameters were substituted into six formulas respectively to obtain the predicted values, and the measured values were calculated and compared with the predicted values. The results showed that the variation of FVC was smaller (standard deviation was 9.9-14.1), MVV variation was the largest (9.95-21.1) and FEV1 was between the two. F-test, FVC, FEV1 and MVV F values were 4.88,7.32,45.9, there is a very significant difference (P <0.01). There were significant differences between FVC formula 6 and formulas 1, 2, 3 and 5 (P <0.05), and between FEV1 formula 5 and the other five formulas (P <0.05 ), MVV formula except for 1 and 6, 2 and 3 no difference between the other formulas have a very significant difference (P <0.01). In addition, the comparison of the MVV derived from the FEV1 substitution formula and the measured MVV found that the MVV derivation was significantly higher than the actual value (P <0.01). The result of this paper shows that