ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Use of a self-completed life history calendar in relation to data completeness and accuracy.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA life history calendar allows mapping personal events to improve recall of past events in retrospective data collection. We estimated whether the use of a life history calendar was related to data completeness and accuracy.
methodsParticipants in a case-control study on inflammatory bowel disease in Quebec, Canada in 2021, were invited to complete a preparatory life history calendar and encouraged to consult it during data collection. For data completeness, associations between life history calendar preparation/consultation frequency and number of missing values were estimated using negative binomial regression (Sample Mean Ratio, SMR) with inverse-probability-weighting to balance participants’ characteristics across life history calendar preparation/consultation groups. One hundred and thirty variables were considered. For accuracy, parents’ age at participants’ birth and number of older siblings, the only variables available from both the questionnaire and Birth Registry, were compared for agreement according to life history calendar preparation.
resultsOf 2727 participants, 48% prepared the life history calendar. During data collection, 27%, 48%, and 25% consulted it never, sometimes, often/always, respectively. The overall proportion of missing values was low (0.7%). Life history calendar preparation (vs. not) was associated with a 22% decrease in number of missing values (SMR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64–0.96). There were fewer missing values with greater consultation frequency, with 26% (SMR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.56–0.98), 31% (SMR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.55–0.86) and 59% (SMR = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.29–0.56) fewer missing values among those who never, sometimes, often/always consulted it, respectively, vs. not having completed a life history calendar. Life history calendar preparation was associated with slightly better agreement between self-reported and registry data for mother’s (5% higher) and father’s (4% higher) age at participant’s birth, but not number of older siblings (1% lower).
conclusionsLife history calendar preparation/consultation were associated with higher data completeness. However, the assessment of data accuracy was limited due to the small number of available variables.
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.