These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Minimal error in self-report of having had DXA, but self-report of its results was poor.
    Author: Cadarette SM, Beaton DE, Gignac MA, Jaglal SB, Dickson L, Hawker GA.
    Journal: J Clin Epidemiol; 2007 Dec; 60(12):1306-11. PubMed ID: 17998086.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of both self-report of having had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and self-reported DXA test results. METHODS: Participants were recruited in 2003 and 2004 from a population-based study of women aged 65-90 years examining osteoporosis management in Ontario, Canada (N=871). Women reporting having had a DXA were eligible and asked to report the results of their most recent test. Participant responses were compared against DXA reports obtained from physicians. RESULTS: We obtained 413 (81%) physician records among the 510 women who reported having had a DXA test. Of these, the positive predictive value for self-report of having had a DXA was 93%. The weighted kappa statistic for the agreement between self-report and actual DXA results was 0.42 (95% confidence interval=0.34-0.49). Although 84% of those with normal bone reported this, only 29% of those with osteopenia and 62% with osteoporosis reported their results correctly. Self-report of a clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis was better among those with a low trauma fracture, yet underestimated osteoporosis prevalence by 24%. CONCLUSION: There is minimal measurement error in self-report of having had a DXA test. Self-report of DXA results will underestimate osteoporosis prevalence and is not a good proxy for clinical diagnosis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]