ArticleBMJ open2021
Validity of self-reported diagnoses of gynaecological and breast cancers in a prospective cohort study: the Japan Nurses' Health Study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesTo validate the self-reported diagnoses of gynaecological and breast cancers in a nationwide prospective cohort study of nursing professionals: the Japan Nurses' Health Study (JNHS). DESIGN AND
settingRetrospective analysis of the JNHS. PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES: Data were reviewed for 15 717 subjects. The mean age at baseline was 41.6±8.3 years (median: 41), and the mean follow-up period was 10.5±3.8 years (median: 12). Participants are regularly mailed a follow-up questionnaire once every 2 years. Respondents who self-reported a positive cancer diagnosis were sent an additional confirmation questionnaire and contacted the diagnosing facility to confirm the diagnosis based on medical records. A review panel of experts verified the disease status. Regular follow-up, confirmation questionnaires and expert review were validated for their positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).
resultsNew incidences were verified in 37, 47, 26 and 300 cervical, endometrial, ovarian and breast cancer cases, respectively. The estimated incidence rates were 22.0, 25.4, 13.8 and 160.4 per 100 000 person-years. These were comparable with those of national data from regional cancer registries in Japan. For regular follow-up, the corresponding PPVs for cervical, endometrial, ovarian and breast cancer were 16.9%, 54.2%, 45.1% and 81.4%, and the NPVs were 100%, 99.9%, 99.9% and 99.9%, respectively. Adding the confirmation questionnaire improved the PPVs to 31.5%, 88.9%, 76.7% and 99.9%; the NPVs were uniformly 99.9%. Expert review yielded PPVs and NPVs that were all ~100%.
conclusionsGynaecological cancer cannot be accurately assessed by self-reporting alone. Additionally, the external validity of cancer incidence in this cohort was confirmed.
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.