ArticleClinical epidemiology2021
Validity of Self-Reported Diagnosis of Osteoporosis in Japan Nurses' Health Study.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pregnancy and lactation-associated osteoporosis as a major type of premenopausal osteoporosis: a retrospective cohort study based on real-world data.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Mandibular cortical bone structure as risk indicator in fractured and non-fractured 80-year-old men and women.BMC oral health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough the validity of self-reported osteoporosis is often questioned, validation studies are lacking. This study was performed to investigate how well self-reported diagnoses of osteoporosis agreed with validated clinical information in young and middle-aged women in the Japan Nurses' Health Study (JNHS), a nationwide prospective cohort study of nursing professionals. PATIENTS AND
methodsData were reviewed for 15,717 subjects from the combined cohorts of the JNHS and a preceding pilot study (Gunma Nurses' Health Study). The subjects' mean age at the baseline (BL) survey was 41.6 ± 8.3 years, and the mean follow-up period was 11.5 ± 4.4 years. Participating nurses were mailed a follow-up questionnaire every 2 years. Respondents who self-reported a positive osteoporosis diagnosis during the study period were sent an additional confirmation questionnaire to corroborate the details.
resultsThe number (proportion) of women with osteoporosis was 884 (5.6%) [primary osteoporosis, 812 (5.2%); secondary osteoporosis, 72 (0.5%)]. The cumulative incidence of osteoporosis at the age of 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 years was estimated to be 0.1% (95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.2), 1.1% (0.9-1.3), 7.7% (7.0-8.4), 23.6% (21.6-25.7), and 54.2% (40.2-68.1), respectively. For BL and regular follow-up + expert review versus BL and regular follow-up + confirmation questionnaire + expert review, the positive predictive value (PPV) was 61.3% versus 85.6% and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.9% versus 98.2%, respectively.
conclusionSelf-reporting was associated with a high NPV for the incidence of osteoporosis. Although the PPV was slightly lower, additional corroborations by confirmation questionnaire might improve the PPV.
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.