Observational studyBMJ open2022
Agreement between self-reported and researcher-measured height, weight and blood pressure measurements for online prescription of the combined oral contraceptive pill: an observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare agreement between self-reported height, weight and blood pressure measurements submitted to an online contraceptive service with researcher-measured values and document strategies used for self-reporting.
designAn observational study.
settingAn online sexual health service which provided the combined oral contraceptive pill, free of charge, to users in Southeast London, England.
participantsBetween August 2017 and August 2019, 365 participants were recruited. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome, for which the study was powered, was the agreement between self-reported and researcher-measured body mass index (BMI) and blood pressure measurements, compared using kappa coefficients. Secondary measures of agreement included sensitivity, specificity and Bland Altman plots. The study also describes strategies used for self-reporting and classifies their clinical appropriateness.
results327 participants fully described their process of blood pressure measurement with 296 (90.5%) classified as clinically appropriate. Agreement between self-reported and researcher-measured BMI was substantial (0.72 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.0)), but poor for blood pressure (0.06 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.23)). Self-reported height and weight readings identified 80.0% (95% CI 28.4 to 99.5) of individuals with a researcher-measured high BMI (≥than 35 kg/m
conclusionIn this study, while self-reported BMI was found to have substantial agreement with researcher-measured BMI, self-reported blood pressure was shown to have poor agreement with researcher-measured blood pressure. This may be due to the inherent variability of blood pressure, overdiagnosis of hypertension by researchers due to 'white coat syndrome' or inaccurate self-reporting. Strategies to improve self-reporting of blood pressure for remote prescription of the combined pill are needed.
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.