ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
Reliability and Validity of self-reported Vascular Risk Factors in a Multi-Ethnic Community Based Study of Aging and Dementia.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe reliability and validity of self-reported cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk factors remains inconsistent in aging research.
methodsWe assessed the reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity, and percent agreement of self-reported hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease, in comparison with direct measures of blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and medication use in 1870 participants in a multiethic study of aging and dementia.
resultsReliability of self-reported for hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease was excellent. Agreement between self-reports and clinical measures was moderate for hypertension (kappa: 0.58), good for diabetes (kappa: 0.76-0.79), and moderate for heart disease (kappa: 0.45) differing slightly by age, sex, education, and race/ethnic group. Sensitivity and specificity for hypertension was 88.6%-78.1%, for diabetes was 87.7%-92.0% (HbA1c > 6.5%) or 92.7%-92.8% (HbA1c > 7%), and for heart disease was 85.8%-75.5%. DISCUSSION: Self-reported history of hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease are reliable and valid compared to direct measurements or medication use.
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.