Validation of self-reported screening mammography histories among women with and without breast cancer
Validation of self-reported screening mammography histories among women with and without breast cancer
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/aje/kwg136
复制
发表时间：
2003-08-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Nadel, MR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Norman, SA;Localio, AR;Nadel, MR
作为筛查性乳腺X线摄影有效性的病例对照研究的一部分，作者验证了1994-1998年诊断为乳腺癌的2，495名40-64岁女性的乳腺X线摄影史，以及615名从未诊断为乳腺癌的对照的25%随机样本，所有人都在过去5年中报告了乳腺X线摄影。来自美国五个大都市地区的受试者通过机构记录（“金标准”）交叉分类，并根据最近筛查乳房X线照片的历史（1年内或2年内）进行自我报告。1年时自我报告筛查的敏感性和特异性分别为0.93和0.82，病例组为0.92和0.80。2年时，病例组和对照组的敏感性和特异性分别为0.97和0.78。灵敏度和特异性差异的置信区间较窄，包括零。很少有证据表明存在记忆重叠（对事件的回忆比实际发生的时间更近）。结果表明，在一项基于访谈的筛查性乳腺X线摄影疗效病例对照研究中，1）根据灵敏度和特异性调整的近期筛查性乳腺X线摄影的估计真实患病率略低于自我报告的患病率，2）暴露状态的差异性错误分类轻微。因此，比值比可能偏向于零，低估了筛选疗效。
As part of a case-control study of the efficacy of screening mammography, the authors validated the mammography histories of 2,495 women aged 40-64 years with incident breast cancer diagnosed in 1994-1998 and a 25% random sample of 615 controls never diagnosed with breast cancer, all reporting a mammogram in the past 5 years. Subjects from five metropolitan areas of the United States were cross-classified by facility records ("gold standard") and self-report according to history of a recent screening mammogram (within 1 year or within 2 years). Sensitivity and specificity of self-reported screening at 1 year were 0.93 and 0.82, respectively, for cases and 0.92 and 0.80 for controls. At 2 years, sensitivity and specificity were 0.97 and 0.78 for both cases and controls. Confidence intervals for the differences in sensitivity and specificity were narrow and included zero. Scant evidence was found of telescoping (recollection of events as more recent than actual). Findings suggest that, in an interview-based case-control study of the efficacy of screening mammography, 1) estimated true prevalences of recent screening mammography adjusted for sensitivity and specificity will be slightly lower than self-reported prevalences, and 2) differential misclassification of exposure status is slight. Therefore, odds ratios will likely be biased toward the null, underestimating screening efficacy.