ArticleJournal of caring sciences2024
An Examination of the Agreement between Self-reported Diabetes and Paraclinical Tests, Medical Records, and Clinical Examinations: Insights from the Shahedieh Cohort Study, Yazd, Iran.
Article in Journal of caring sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association between hearing protection device use and noise-induced hearing loss among manufacturing workers in China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Many researchers utilize self-reports to evaluate the prevalence of diseases. However, the accuracy of these self-reports remains uncertain in various studies. The objective of this particular study was to validate self-reported cases of diabetes among adults aged 35-70 years participating in the Shahedieh Cohort Study (SHCS). Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the first phase of SHCS during 2015-2017. The study included 1000 Iranian adults aged 35-70 years. The Gold standard for diabetes was determined by measuring fasting blood sugar (FBS) and evaluating the history of treatment and use of diabetes medications. To assess self-report validity, various statistical indices such as sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (NPVs), accuracy, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and AUC were used. The agreement between self-reported diabetes and the gold standard was assessed using kappa statistics. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 13 and R 4.3.1 software. Results: The study findings indicated that the prevalence of diabetes was 18% according to self-report and 19.9% according to the gold standard measurement. The self-report accuracy was 95.67%. There was perfect agreement (kappa=0.86) between the self-report and gold standard criteria. The AUC, sensitivity and specificity of self-reported diabetes were 0.937, 93.82% and 96.08%, respectively. Additionally, the results suggested that the self-report of diabetes was more valid in individuals with a normal body mass index (BMI) and without a family history of diabetes in first-degree relatives. Conclusion: The results showed that in the absence of diabetes control programs, self-report of diabetes is reliable and recommended.
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.