ArticleRevista de saude publica2017
Validation of self-reported diabetes in a representative sample of São Paulo city.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Health Survey of São Paulo - ISA-Physical Activity and Environment Longitudinal Study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Awareness, treatment, and control of diabetes in South America: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Validation of the self-reported diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension in Iran; STEPS 2016.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2024Article
- Socio-demographic correlates of diabetes self-reporting validity: a study on the adult Kurdish population.BMC endocrine disorders · 2022Article
- Gender Differences in the Association Between Cataract and Mental Health in Adults With Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Analysis From the Spanish National Health Survey 2017.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Personal Characteristics Effects on Validation of Self-reported Type 2 Diabetes From a Cross-sectional Survey Among Chinese Adults.Journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
- Depression Fully Mediates the Effect of Multimorbidity on Self-Rated Health for Economically Disadvantaged African American Men but Not Women.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Associations between self-reported diabetes mellitus, disordered eating behaviours, weight/shape overvaluation, and health-related quality of life.Journal of eating disorders · 2019Article
- Dietary patterns in internal migrants in a continental country: A population-based study.PloS one · 2017Article
- Sleep insufficiency and incident diabetes mellitus among indigenous and minority populations in Greece.Sleep science (Sao Paulo, Brazil)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To validate the self-reported diabetes mellitus in adults and older adults living in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. METHODS We have used data of 569 subjects (284 adults and 285 older adults), participants of the population-based cross-sectional study Inquérito de Saúde do Município de São Paulo (Health Survey of São Paulo). Fasting glucose ≥ 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) and/or use of drugs (oral hypoglycemic and/or insulin) defined the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. We have validated the self-reported diabetes mellitus by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values. We have used Poisson regression with robust variance to verify the factors associated with the sensitivity of the self-reported datum. For all analyses, we have considered the sample design of the study. RESULTS The sensitivity of self-reported diabetes mellitus was 63.8% (95%CI 49.2-76.3), specificity was 99.7% (95%CI 99.1-99.9), positive predictive value was 95.5% (95%CI 84.4-98.8), and negative predictive value was 96.9% (95%CI 94.9-98.2). The correct reporting of diabetes mellitus was more prevalent among older adults (PR = 2.0; 95%CI 1.2-3.5) than among adults. CONCLUSIONS The use of the datum of self-reported diabetes mellitus is valid, especially among older adults living in the city of São Paulo. The results highlight the need to track diabetes mellitus in asymptomatic subjects who have one or more risk factors for it, mainly in the adult population of this city.
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.