ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026
Measuring the validity of survey questions on breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2026. 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.
- 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is used to measure progress on cancer screening. We assessed the validity of questions on cervical, colorectal, breast, and lung cancer screening from the 2020, 2021, and 2022 NHIS, using electronic medical records (EMRs) as our standard for accuracy. We surveyed 1770 adults aged 21+ years for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer from 4 US health systems. We made slight changes in question order and wording to improve the understanding of questions. We compared survey responses for screening adherence with EMR data as a gold standard, calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, Cohen's Kappa, and reports-to-records ratio. Self-reported screening adherence had high sensitivity for most cancer types (range 0.79-0.96). We found good agreement for breast cancer screening using Cohen's Kappa (0.81) and more modest agreement for the other 3 cancer sites (0.59-0.65). The reports-to-records ratio showed overreporting of cancer screening, ranging from 12% to ⁓50% more screening reported for the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended screening periodicity compared to medical record data. NHIS questions that assess cancer screening provide reasonably accurate estimates. However, some misclassification with expected bias toward overreporting of screening suggests that improvements in measuring screening adherence are needed.
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.