ArticleBMJ open2025
Assessment of adverse childhood experiences in women: a study of reliability and predictive validity of self-reporting versus medical records abstraction in an American population.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo study the reliability and validity of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) scores measured using a questionnaire versus abstraction of medical records, and to test whether the scores vary by history of bilateral oophorectomy, or by age and presence of anxiety or depressive symptoms at the time of questionnaire administration.
designThe study involved a reliability component and a predictive validity component.
settingA population-based sample in Olmsted County, Minnesota, was derived from the Mayo Clinic Cohort Study of Oophorectomy and Aging-2.
participantsWe included 198 women who underwent premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy for a non-malignant indication between 1988 and 2007 and 174 referent women of the same age randomly sampled from the general population (total of 372 women). At a later time (median of 22.7 years later), the women were contacted and invited to self-administer the ACE questionnaire during an inperson visit. Independent of the visit, their medical records were abstracted for ACE by a physician.
interventionsQuestionnaire and abstraction-based ACE scores.
main outcome measuresAgreement between the two ACE scores (reliability; weighted kappa statistics) and comparison of incidence of multimorbidity in women with ACE scores ≥1 vs 0 (predictive validity; survival analyses). Data were analysed in March and April 2024.
resultsThe 372 women in the study had a median age of 65 years at the time of ACE questionnaire self-administration (IQR, 62-69). Questionnaire-based ACE scores showed moderate agreement with abstracted ACE scores (weighted kappa 0.44 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.54)). The cut-off score of ACE ≥1 showed an overall fair agreement between the two scores (kappa 0.33 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.43)). A comparison of the cumulative incidence of multimorbidity in women with an ACE score ≥1 versus women with ACE score of 0 yielded a HR of 1.13 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.27) for abstracted ACE and 1.13 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.27) for questionnaire-based ACE. The best predictive validity was for ACE measured by both methods combined (either or) with a HR of 1.29 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.46). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Questionnaire-based ACE scores have moderate agreement with medical records abstracted ACE scores. However, both sets of ACE scores are predictive of the accumulation of multimorbidity at older age and should be considered complementary.
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.