Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26553839›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Validity assessment of self-reported medication use by comparing to pharmacy insurance claims.

Misuzu Fujita, Yasunori Sato, Kengo Nagashima, Sho Takahashi, Akira Hata

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Misuzu FujitaDepartment of Public Health, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan.
Yasunori SatoDepartment of Global Clinical Research, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan Chiba University Hospital, Clinical Research Center, Chiba, Japan.
Kengo NagashimaDepartment of Global Clinical Research, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan Chiba University Hospital, Clinical Research Center, Chiba, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4529-9045
Sho TakahashiChiba University Hospital, Clinical Research Center, Chiba, Japan.
Akira HataDepartment of Public Health, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn Japan, an annual health check-up and health promotion guidance programme was established in 2008 in accordance with the Act on Assurance of Medical Care for the Elderly. A self-reported questionnaire on medication use is a required item in this programme and has been used widely, but its validity has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of this questionnaire by comparing self-reported usage to pharmacy insurance claims.

settingThis is a population-based validation study. Self-reported medication use for hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia is the evaluated measurement. Data on pharmacy insurance claims are used as a reference standard.

participantsParticipants were 54,712 beneficiaries of the National Health Insurance of Chiba City. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and κ statistics of the self-reported medication-use questionnaire for predicting actual prescriptions during 1 month (that of the check-up) and 3 months (that of the check-up and the previous 2 months) were calculated.

resultsSensitivity and specificity scores of questionnaire data for predicting insurance claims covering 3 months were, respectively, 92.4% (95% CI 91.9 to 92.8) and 86.4% (95% CI 86.0 to 86.7) for hypertension, 82.6% (95% CI 81.1 to 84.0) and 98.5% (95% CI 98.4 to 98.6) for diabetes, and 86.2% (95% CI 85.5 to 86.8) and 91.0% (95% CI 90.8 to 91.3) for dyslipidaemia. Corresponding κ statistics were 70.9% (95% CI 70.1 to 71.7), 77.1% (95% CI 76.2 to 77.9) and 69.8% (95% CI 68.9 to 70.6). The specificity was significantly higher for questionnaire data covering 3 months compared with data covering 1 month for all 3 conditions.

conclusionsSelf-reported questionnaire data on medication use had sufficiently high validity for further analyses. Item responses showed close agreement with actual prescriptions, particularly those covering 3 months.

Indexed as

PrescriptionsSelf ReportAdultAgedDiabetes MellitusDyslipidemiasFemaleHumansHypertensionInsurance Claim ReportingInsurance, HealthJapanMaleMiddle AgedPharmacySurveys and QuestionnairesEPIDEMIOLOGYMEDICAL HISTORY

Identifiers

PMID26553839
PMCPMC4654279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.