ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Inconsistencies in self-reported diabetes in a large panel study: the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE).
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Individual and community-level factors affecting diabetes screening uptake among adults in 14 low- and middle-income countries: a multilevel mixed-effects analysis of recent demographic and health surveys.BMC public health · 2026Article
- The Association between Sarcopenia and Chronic Kidney Disease among the Patients of Diabetes Mellitus: Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008-2011.Journal of bone metabolism · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe validity of self-reported chronic conditions has been assessed by comparing them with medical records or register data in several studies. However, the reliability of self-reports of chronic diseases has less often been examined. Our aim was to assess the proportion and determinants of inconsistent self-reports of diabetes in a long panel study.
methodsSHARE (Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe) includes 140,000 persons aged ≥ 50 years from 28 European countries and Israel. We used data from waves 1 to 7 (except wave 3) collected between 2004 and 2017. Diabetes was assessed by self-report. An inconsistent report for diabetes was defined as reporting the condition in one wave, but denying it in at least one later wave. The analysis data set included 13,179 persons who reported diabetes, and answered the question about diabetes in at least one later wave. Log-binomial regression models were fitted to estimate crude and adjusted relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations between various exposure variables and inconsistent report of diabetes.
resultsThe proportion of persons with inconsistent self-reports of diabetes was 33.0% (95% CI: 32.2%-33.8%). Inconsistencies occurred less often in persons taking antidiabetic drugs (RR = 0.53 (0.53-0.56)), persons with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m
conclusionIn SHARE, inconsistent self-report of diabetes is frequent. Consistent reports are more likely for persons whose characteristics make diabetes more salient, like intake of antidiabetic medication, obesity, and poor subjective health. However, lack of attention in answering the questions, and poor wording of the items may also play a role.
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.