Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26729390›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Comparison of self-reported and biomedical data on hypertension and diabetes: findings from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS).

Meng Ning, Qiang Zhang, Min Yang

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Meng NingWest China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Qiang ZhangWest China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Min YangWest China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

China Health and Retirement Longitudinal StudyR01AG037031 · NIA · PEKING UNIVERSITY · PI STRAUSS, JOHN A, WANG, YAFENG · 2010 to 2024
$15.1M
China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study - PilotR21AG031372 · NIA · PEKING UNIVERSITY · PI ZHAO, YAOHUI · 2007 to 2008
$273k
NIA NIH HHS 1-R01-AG037031-01NIA NIH HHS 1-R21-AG031372-01NIA NIH HHS 3-R01AG037031-03S1NIA NIH HHS R01 AG037031NIA NIH HHS R21 AG031372
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe examined the level of agreement between biomedical and self-reported measurements of hypertension and diabetes in a Chinese national community sample, and explored associations of the agreement and possible contextual effects among provinces and geographic regions in China.

designSecondary analysis of a cohort sample. SETTING AND

participantsCommunity samples were drawn from the national baseline survey of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS, 2011-2012) through multistage probability sampling, which included households with members 45 years of age or above with a total sample size of 17,708 individuals. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity and κ were used as measurements of agreements or validity; variance of validity measures among provinces and communities was estimated using random-effects models.

resultsSelf-reports for hypertension and diabetes showed high specificity (96.3% and 98.3%, respectively) but low sensitivity (56.3% and 61.5%, respectively). Agreement between self-reported data and biomedical measurements was moderate for both hypertension (κ 0.57) and diabetes (κ 0.65), with respondents who were older, of higher socioeconomic status, better educated and who had hospital admissions in the past 12 months showing stronger agreements than their counterparts. Large and significant variations in the sensitivity among provinces for hypertension, and among communities for both hypertension and diabetes, could neither be attributed to the effects of respondents' characteristics nor to the contextual effects of city-village differences.

conclusionsAs a considerable number of people in the overall sample were unaware of their conditions, self-reports will lead to an underestimation of the prevalence of hypertension and diabetes. However, in more developed communities or provinces, self-reported data can be a reliable estimate of the prevalence of the two conditions. Further investigations of contextual effects at provincial and community levels could highlight public health strategies to improve awareness of the two conditions.

Indexed as

Self ReportAgedAged, 80 and overChinaDiabetes MellitusFemaleHealth SurveysHumansHypertensionLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPrevalenceSensitivity and SpecificityEPIDEMIOLOGY

Identifiers

PMID26729390
PMCPMC4716227

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.