ArticleSAGE open medicine2016
Test-retest reliability of self-reported diabetes diagnosis in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study: A population-based longitudinal study (n =33,919).
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inconsistencies in self-reported diabetes in a large panel study: the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE).BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- The reliability of self-reporting chronic diseases: how reliable is the result of population-based cohort studies.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2019Article
- Inconsistencies in self-reported health conditions: results of a nationwide panel study.International journal of public health · 2019Article
- Childhood adversities and chronic conditions: examination of mediators, recall bias and age at diagnosis.International journal of public health · 2018Article
- Coffee consumption and risk of rare cancers in Scandinavian countries.European journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
- Comparative effectiveness of a portion-controlled meal replacement program for weight loss in adults with and without diabetes/high blood sugar.Nutrition & diabetes · 2017Article
- Confounding and Statistical Significance of Indirect Effects: Childhood Adversity, Education, Smoking, and Anxious and Depressive Symptomatology.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
- Clarifying Associations between Childhood Adversity, Social Support, Behavioral Factors, and Mental Health, Health, and Well-Being in Adulthood: A Population-Based Study.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
- Differential Recall Bias, Intermediate Confounding, and Mediation Analysis in Life Course Epidemiology: An Analytic Framework with Empirical Example.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSelf-reported information from questionnaires is frequently used in epidemiological studies, but few of these studies provide information on the reproducibility of individual items contained in the questionnaire. We studied the test-retest reliability of self-reported diabetes among 33,919 participants in Norwegian Women and Cancer Study.
methodsThe test-retest reliability of self-reported type 1 and type 2 diabetes diagnoses was evaluated between three self-administered questionnaires (completed in 1991, 1998, and 2005 by Norwegian Women and Cancer participants) by kappa agreement. The time interval between the test-retest studies was ~7 and ~14 years. Sensitivity of the kappa agreement for type 1 and type 2 diabetes diagnoses was assessed. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess whether test-retest reliability varies with age, body mass index, physical activity, education, and smoking status.
resultsThe kappa agreement for both types of self-reported diabetes diagnoses combined was good (⩾0.65) for all three test-retest studies (1991-1998, 1991-2005, and 1998-2005). The kappa agreement for type 1 diabetes was good (⩾0.73) in the 1991-2005 and the 1998-2005 test-retest studies, and very good (0.83) in the 1991-1998 test-retest study. The kappa agreement for type 2 diabetes was moderate (0.57) in the 1991-2005 test-retest study and good (⩾0.66) in the 1991-1998 and 1998-2005 test-retest studies. The overall kappa agreement in the 1991-1998 test-retest study was stronger than in the 1991-2005 test-retest study and the 1998-2005 test-retest study. There was no clear pattern of inconsistency in the kappa agreements within different strata of age, BMI, physical activity, and smoking. The kappa agreement was strongest among the respondents with 17 or more years of education, while generally it was weaker among the least educated group.
conclusionThe test-retest reliability of the diabetes was acceptable and there was no clear pattern of inconsistency in the kappa agreement stratified by age, body mass index, physical activity, and smoking. The study suggests that self-reported diabetes diagnosis from middle-aged women enrolled in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study is reliable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.