Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22673826›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2013

Validity of self-reported osteoporosis in mid-age and older women.

G M E E Peeters, S E Tett, A J Dobson, G D Mishra

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The diabetes-fracture association in women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes is partially mediated by falls: a 15-year longitudinal study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021
    Observational
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Screening, prevention and management of osteoporosis among Canadian adults.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

G M E E PeetersSchool of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston Road, Brisbane, Queensland 4006, Australia. g.peeters@uq.edu.au
S E Tett
A J Dobson
G D Mishra
University of Queensland · AUQueensland Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe validity of self-reported osteoporosis is often questioned, but validation studies are lacking. We validated self-reported prevalence and incidence of osteoporosis against self-reported and administrative data on medications. The concurrent validity was moderate to good for self-reported prevalent osteoporosis, but only poor to moderate for self-reported incident osteoporosis in mid-age and older women, respectively. Construct validity was acceptable for self-reported prevalent but not for incident osteoporosis.

introductionThe validity of self-reported osteoporosis is often questioned, but validation studies are lacking. The aim was to examine the validity of self-reported prevalence and incidence of osteoporosis against self-reported and administrative data on medications.

methodsData were from mid-age (56-61 years in 2007) and older (79-84 years in 2005) participants in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. Self-reported diagnosis was compared with medication information from (1) self-report (n(mid) = 10,509 and n(old) = 7,072), and (2) pharmaceutical prescription reimbursement claims (n(mid) = 6,632 and n(old) = 4,668). Concurrent validity of self-report was examined by calculating agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Construct validity was tested by examining associations of self-reported diagnosis with osteoporosis-related characteristics (fracture, weight, bodily pain, back pain, and physical functioning).

resultsAgreement, sensitivity and PPV of self-reported prevalent diagnosis were higher when compared with medication claims (mid-age women: kappa = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.56; older women: kappa = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.63-0.68) than with self-reported medication (mid-age women: kappa = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.37-0.45; older women: kappa = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.55-0.59). Sensitivity, PPV and agreement were lower for self-reported incident diagnosis (mid-age women: kappa = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.32-0.47; older women: kappa = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.51-0.61). Statistically significant associations between self-reported diagnosis and at least four of five characteristics were found for prevalent diagnosis in both age groups and for incident diagnosis in older women.

conclusionsThe concurrent validity was moderate to good for self-reported prevalent osteoporosis, but only poor to moderate for self-reported incident osteoporosis in mid-age and older women, respectively. Construct validity was acceptable for self-reported prevalent but not for incident osteoporosis.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAustraliaBone Density Conservation AgentsConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicDrug UtilizationEffect Modifier, EpidemiologicFemaleHumansIncidenceMiddle AgedOsteoporosis, PostmenopausalPredictive Value of TestsPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsBone Density Conservation Agents

Identifiers

PMID22673826
OpenAlexW1974737882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.