ArticlePeerJ2024
Accuracy of self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference in poor, rural areas of China.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: There are differing opinions and findings about the accuracy of self-reported data. This study sought to assess the accuracy of self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference (WC) data among adult residents in poor, rural areas of China. Methods: Multi-stage stratified cluster random sampling was used to sample rural adult residents in Jinzhai County. Intraclass correlations (ICCs), Bland-Altman plots with limits of agreements (LOAs), and Cohen's kappa were used to examine the accuracy of self-reported data. Multiple linear regression was used to explore the effect of demographic and socioeconomic variables. Results: Height was over-reported by an average of 0.67 cm, weight and WC were both under-reported, by an average of 0.004 kg and 1.09 cm, respectively. The ICC for height was 0.92, the ICC for weight was 0.93, and the ICC for WC was 0.93. Bland-Altman plots showed no trend in variability with increasing height, weight, and WC, but 95% of the LOAs were wide, especially for WC. The percentage agreement (kappa) for BMI was 82.10% (0.71), and the percentage agreement for WC was 83.56% (0.66). Overall, obesity, overweight, and increased WC were underestimated by 0.56%, 2.64%, and 6.89%, respectively. Assessments of which demographic and socioeconomic factors were associated with statistically significant differences between self-reported and measured data showed that education (junior school Conclusions: Self-reported height and weight were shown to be reliable in poor, rural areas of China, but self-reported WC should be used with caution. To improve the accuracy of self-reported data, certain subgroups should be targeted for educational interventions.
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.