An Examination of the Agreement between Self-reported Diabetes and Paraclinical Tests, Medical Records, and Clinical Examinations: Insights from the Shahedieh Cohort Study, Yazd, Iran.

Journal of caring sciences Pub Date : 2024-04-13 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.34172/jcs.33331
Farzan Madadizadeh, Mahdieh Momayyezi, Hossein Fallahzadeh
{"title":"An Examination of the Agreement between Self-reported Diabetes and Paraclinical Tests, Medical Records, and Clinical Examinations: Insights from the Shahedieh Cohort Study, Yazd, Iran.","authors":"Farzan Madadizadeh, Mahdieh Momayyezi, Hossein Fallahzadeh","doi":"10.34172/jcs.33331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Many researchers utilize self-reports to evaluate the prevalence of diseases. However, the accuracy of these self-reports remains uncertain in various studies. The objective of this particular study was to validate self-reported cases of diabetes among adults aged 35-70 years participating in the Shahedieh Cohort Study (SHCS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the first phase of SHCS during 2015-2017. The study included 1000 Iranian adults aged 35-70 years. The Gold standard for diabetes was determined by measuring fasting blood sugar (FBS) and evaluating the history of treatment and use of diabetes medications. To assess self-report validity, various statistical indices such as sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (NPVs), accuracy, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and AUC were used. The agreement between self-reported diabetes and the gold standard was assessed using kappa statistics. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 13 and R 4.3.1 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study findings indicated that the prevalence of diabetes was 18% according to self-report and 19.9% according to the gold standard measurement. The self-report accuracy was 95.67%. There was perfect agreement (kappa=0.86) between the self-report and gold standard criteria. The AUC, sensitivity and specificity of self-reported diabetes were 0.937, 93.82% and 96.08%, respectively. Additionally, the results suggested that the self-report of diabetes was more valid in individuals with a normal body mass index (BMI) and without a family history of diabetes in first-degree relatives.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results showed that in the absence of diabetes control programs, self-report of diabetes is reliable and recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":516530,"journal":{"name":"Journal of caring sciences","volume":"13 2","pages":"97-105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417301/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of caring sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/jcs.33331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Many researchers utilize self-reports to evaluate the prevalence of diseases. However, the accuracy of these self-reports remains uncertain in various studies. The objective of this particular study was to validate self-reported cases of diabetes among adults aged 35-70 years participating in the Shahedieh Cohort Study (SHCS).

Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the first phase of SHCS during 2015-2017. The study included 1000 Iranian adults aged 35-70 years. The Gold standard for diabetes was determined by measuring fasting blood sugar (FBS) and evaluating the history of treatment and use of diabetes medications. To assess self-report validity, various statistical indices such as sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (NPVs), accuracy, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and AUC were used. The agreement between self-reported diabetes and the gold standard was assessed using kappa statistics. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 13 and R 4.3.1 software.

Results: The study findings indicated that the prevalence of diabetes was 18% according to self-report and 19.9% according to the gold standard measurement. The self-report accuracy was 95.67%. There was perfect agreement (kappa=0.86) between the self-report and gold standard criteria. The AUC, sensitivity and specificity of self-reported diabetes were 0.937, 93.82% and 96.08%, respectively. Additionally, the results suggested that the self-report of diabetes was more valid in individuals with a normal body mass index (BMI) and without a family history of diabetes in first-degree relatives.

Conclusion: The results showed that in the absence of diabetes control programs, self-report of diabetes is reliable and recommended.

研究自我报告的糖尿病与辅助临床测试、医疗记录和临床检查之间的一致性:来自伊朗亚兹德沙赫迪耶队列研究的启示。
介绍:许多研究人员利用自我报告来评估疾病的患病率。然而,在各种研究中,这些自我报告的准确性仍不确定。本研究旨在验证参与沙赫迪耶队列研究(SHCS)的 35-70 岁成年人自我报告的糖尿病病例:这项横断面研究使用的是 2015-2017 年期间沙赫迪耶队列研究第一阶段的数据。研究对象包括 1000 名 35-70 岁的伊朗成年人。通过测量空腹血糖(FBS)和评估糖尿病治疗史及糖尿病药物使用情况来确定糖尿病的金标准。为了评估自我报告的有效性,使用了各种统计指标,如敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值(NPV)、准确性、阳性似然比(LR+)、阴性似然比(LR-)和AUC。自我报告的糖尿病与金标准之间的一致性采用卡帕统计进行评估。所有统计分析均使用 SPSS 13 版和 R 4.3.1 软件进行:研究结果表明,自我报告的糖尿病患病率为 18%,金标准测量的患病率为 19.9%。自我报告的准确率为 95.67%。自我报告与金标准完全一致(kappa=0.86)。自我报告糖尿病的AUC、灵敏度和特异性分别为0.937、93.82%和96.08%。此外,研究结果表明,对于体重指数(BMI)正常且一级亲属无糖尿病家族史的人来说,自我报告糖尿病更为有效:结果表明,在没有糖尿病控制计划的情况下,糖尿病自我报告是可靠的,值得推荐。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信