ArticleBMC endocrine disorders2022
Socio-demographic correlates of diabetes self-reporting validity: a study on the adult Kurdish population.
Article in BMC endocrine disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Obesity and the accelerated decline in total sleep time increases the self-reported diagnoses of diabetes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Prospective Association Between Video and Computer Game Use During Adolescence and Incidence of Metabolic Health Risks: Secondary Data Analysis.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2023Article
- People with Diabetes Have Poorer Self-Rated Health (SRH) and Diabetes Moderates the Association between Age and SRH.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this research, data of the DehPCS study were used to assess the validity of self-reported diabetes based on the reference criteria, including the history of taking oral anti-diabetic drugs, insulin injection, or high fasting blood sugar.
methodsA cross-sectional analytical study was performed on 4400 participants of the DehPCS study, aged 35-70 years. The reference criteria were oral hypoglycemic drug consumption, insulin injection, and/ or fasting blood sugar ≥126 (mg/dl). The self-reporting diabetes was investigated by well-trained interviewers before the diabetes diagnosis based on the reference criteria. The validity of self-reporting diabetes was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, as well as positive and negative predictive values. Socio-demographic correlates of self-reported agreement were examined by multinomial logistic regression.
resultsThree thousand nine hundred ninety-six people participated in this study, and the participation rate was equal to 90.8%. The diabetes prevalence among the study population was 13.1% based on self-reports and 9.7% based on the reference criteria. Five hundred twenty-three participants reported diabetes, 213 (41.28%) of whom did not have it. We found a good agreement of 92.3% with an acceptable kappa value of 65.1% between self-reporting diabetes and the reference criteria. Diabetes self-reporting also guaranteed sensitivity of 78.5%, specificity of 93.9%, as well as the positive and negative predictive values of 58.7% and of 98.0%, respectively. Being female, the higher economic class, the higher body mass index (BMI), and the positive family history of diabetes increased the chance of false positive. Being male, older ages and the moderate economic class increased the chance of false positive.
conclusionSelf-reporting diabetes is identified as a relatively valid tool which could fairly determine the diabetes prevalence in epidemiological studies. It should be noted that its validity is influenced by some socio-demographic characteristics.
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.