ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2024
Validation of the self-reported diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension in Iran; STEPS 2016.
Article in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Operational Approach to the Lancet 2025 Obesity Framework in Mexican Adults: Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Lifestyle Factors and Diet-Disease-Related Knowledge: A Network Psychometric Analysis of Cardiovascular Health Literacy Among Lebanese Adults.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: As a part of STEPwise approach to risk factor Surveillance (STEPS) study, our aim was to evaluate the validity of the self-reported diagnosis of diabetes (DM), hypertension (HTN), and hypercholesterolemia (Hyper-Chol) in the Iranian population. Methods: Using systematic proportional to size cluster sampling, 27,232 participants were included in our study. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) to assess the validity of self-reported diagnoses. Furthermore, logistic regression was employed to examine the relationship between the validity of self-reported diagnoses and sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. All analyses were performed using STATA version 14. Results: The PPV for self-report of DM, HTN, and Hyper-Chol were estimated to be 69%, 74% and 80%, and NPV measured up to 95%, 84%, and 50%, respectively. Positive/negative self-reports were more accurate among older (younger) individuals. Age had a negative correlation with the validity of self-reported Hyper-Chol but a positive correlation with the validity of self-reported DM and hypertension HTN. Additionally, an increase in BMI was associated with an increase/decrease in PPV and a decrease/increase in NPV across all diseases. Conclusion: Self-report studies hold value in situations where direct in-person interaction is not feasible, either due to prohibitive costs or restrictions imposed by infectious diseases (COVID-19). Self-report surveys are valuable tools in studying the epidemiology of diseases; however, the type of the disease, the study purpose, either finding sick people or healthy people, the age subgroups, and socioeconomic status should be taken into consideration.
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.