Accuracy of subjective hot flush reports compared with continuous sternal skin conductance monitoring
Accuracy of subjective hot flush reports compared with continuous sternal skin conductance monitoring
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/01.aog.0000143891.79482.ee
复制
发表时间：
2004-12-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Monahan, PO
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carpenter, JS;Monahan, PO
目的：比较2个主观和客观的方法来评估潮热频率：前瞻性的纸张潮热日记，前瞻性的电子事件标记，和Biolog动态胸骨皮肤电导monitor.METHODS：55乳腺癌幸存者提供了两个24小时的数据，间隔1周，在基线前被随机干预研究。妇女完成了一个前瞻性的纸潮热日记，并按下事件标记主观记录他们经历的每一个潮热，而穿着胸骨皮肤电导monitor.RESULTS：敏感性均较低（< 50%），在每个星期的主观方法。如果妇女醒着，则她通过日记或事件标记主观地记录真实的监测器验证的潮热的估计概率在36%和50%之间，如果她睡着，则在22%和42%之间。因此，日记潮热的低报导致超过50%的严重程度和困扰评级缺失。对于两周的日志和事件标记以及清醒和睡眠时间，特异性都很高（96-98%）。阳性预测值低（34-52%），阴性预测值高（94-97%）。这表明，而不是高估潮热时，他们并不存在，妇女往往低估潮热时，他们确实exist.CONCLUSION：使用前瞻性的纸张潮热日记和电子事件标记可能会严重低估潮热频率，并导致错过的强度和困扰评级。(C)2004年由美国妇产科医师学会。
OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 subjective and I objective method for assessing hot flush frequency: prospective paper hot flush diaries, prospective electronic event markers, and the Biolog ambulatory sternal skin conductance monitor.METHODS: Fifty-five breast cancer survivors provided two 24-hour periods of data, 1 week apart, at baseline before being randomized for an intervention study. Women completed a prospective paper hot flush diary and pressed an event marker to subjectively record each hot flush they experienced while wearing a sternal skin conductance monitor.RESULTS: Sensitivity was uniformly low (< 50%) for both subjective methods at each week. ne estimated probability that a woman would record a true monitor-verified hot flush subjectively by diary or event marker was between 36% and 50% of the time if she was awake and between 22% and 42% of the time if she was asleep. Underreporting of diary hot flushes consequently resulted in more than 50% missing severity and bother ratings. Specificity was high (96-98%) for both the diary and event marker, for both weeks, and for both waking and sleeping times. The positive predictive value was low (34-52%), and negative predictive value was high (94-97%). This indicates that, rather than overreporting hot flushes when they did not exist, women tended to underreport hot flushes when they did exist.CONCLUSION: Use of prospective paper hot flush diaries and electronic event markers may seriously under-estimate hot flush frequency and result in missed intensity and bother ratings. (C) 2004 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.