ArticleBMJ open2018
Validity of self-reported age at menarche in computer-assisted interview among Chinese schoolgirls: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The J shaped association of age at menarche and cardiovascular events: systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Differential Effects of Gynecological and Chronological Age on Low Birth Weight and Small for Gestational Age.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Pubertal timing in adolescence and adulthood: Relations among contemporaneous and retrospective measures.Developmental psychology · 2025Article
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe attitudes of girls regarding menarche vary according to their cultural backgrounds. Asian girls may hesitate to discuss menarche. Computer-assisted self-administered interviewing (CASI) is considered a valid and effective tool for investigating the timing of menarche; however, the validity of self-reported menarche data from CASI in Chinese culture is currently unknown. We aimed to validate the status and age of menarche attainment by comparing CASI with face-to-face interviewing (FFI).
methodsBased on a cross-sectional study, we collected information regarding the status and age of menarche attainment using CASI and FFI among Chinese schoolgirls. We explored the tools of standard epidemiological indices, including sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and accuracy to examine the capacity of CASI for correctly classifying the status of menarche. Both Pearson and Spearman correlations were calculated for the correlation of age at menarche using CASI with FFI. A Bland-Altman plot was drawn to measure the agreement between the two interview techniques.
resultsIn this study, CASI and FFI were conducted in 3478 schoolgirls with an average age (SD) of 14.3 years (2.46). Menarche attainment was reported in 2496 (71.2%) and 2538 (73.0%) girls using CASI and FFI, respectively. Compared with FFI, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value and the accuracy of CASI were 0.97, 0.80, 0.96 and 0.92, respectively. The correlation of age at menarche between CASI and FFI was 0.728. Approximately >95% and 76.3% of the difference in the age at menarche was within 12 months and 3 months, respectively, between the two interview methods. Among primary schoolgirls in grade 5, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, accuracy and the correlation (0.335) of CASI was lower than those in other subgroups.
conclusionsOverall, the timing of menarche investigated using CASI was valid among all Chinese schoolgirls, except for those in grade 5 or lower.
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.