目的 对肺癌高发的云南省宣威市2014－2016年死因登记数据进行数据清洗，分析数据上报及系统填报过程中存在的问题，以提升死因监测工作质量及基层人员的数据分析能力。方法 采用“人口死亡信息登记管理系统”（新系统）进行死因监测网络直报，对数据进行了查重，极值、异常值和缺失值处理及逻辑核查等；对异常数据进行频数统计并分析原因；计算各年度各类疾病的构成比，判断清洗后的数据质量。结果 数据库有效记录24 704条，删除率为1.10%；身份证与出生日期计算的年龄与上报年龄不一致率≤0.58%；68.82%记录上报时间距死亡时间>1个月，约9%记录为死亡次年或第3年上报。在死亡次年或第3年上报的病例中，有454例为肺癌，且78.63%来自于肺癌高发区；131例重复上报病例主要集中在死亡次年1－3月，且第2次上报的诊断级别及依据均较第1次弱；不明死亡原因的比例为2%左右。结论 采用新系统进行死因监测网络直报后，监测数据质量有较大提高。但死因监测工作仍需加强数据上报的及时性；对于次年补充上报病例，需要有严格审核机制；应对新系统的部分功能进行升级，以技术手段促进监测工作质量。
Objective To investigate the problems existed in the vital registration system (VRS) and improve capacity building for primary public health staff by cleaning the database of VRS from 2014 to 2016 in Xuanwei,an area with high lung cancer mortality in Yunnan province of China. Methods The new VRS was used to report death cause surveillance data. The duplicate records,extreme values,abnormal values,missing values and logical consistency were checked,and proper deletion or modification were done. Frequency statistics and cause analysis were conducted for abnormal data. The annual constituent ratio of diseases (death causes) was calculated to evaluate the data quality after database cleaning. Results After data cleaning,there were 24 704 valid death records in the database;the deletion rate was 1.10%. The inconsistent rate of death case age obtained from identification card number,birth of date and the self-eported was less than 0.58%. Up to 68.82% of the death records were reported more than 1 month later,and 9% of the death records were reported 1 year later or even 3 years later,in which 454 were death records of lung cancers,and 78.63% of 357 lung cancer deaths were from Xuanwei. There were 131 duplicate death records,which were mainly reported during January-March of following year. The level of medical institutions making the second diagnosis was obviously lower than the level of those making the first diagnosis. There were around 2% of death records without identified causes. Conclusion The quality of death surveillance data has been greatly improved after the application of new VRS. However,the timeliness of reporting needs to be further strengthened. More strict review procedure is needed for the after-event death reporting in the following year. Specific functional upgrade of the system is needed to improve surveillance quality.