Validity of self-reported time to pregnancy.
Validity of self-reported time to pregnancy.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/ede.0b013e31818ef47e
复制
发表时间：
2009-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Lynch CD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cooney MA;Buck Louis GM;Sundaram R;McGuiness BM;Lynch CD
回顾性妊娠时间（TTP）的可靠性已经确立，但其有效性仅在1项随访时间较短的研究中进行了评估。10年前，99名妇女参加了一项前瞻性TTP研究，通过邮寄问卷的方式询问她们怀孕所需的时间。他们的回答与他们早期的每日日记数据（金标准）进行了比较。三分之一的女性在月经周期或日历月内无法回忆起她们早期的TTP。只有17%-19%的女性准确地回忆了他们的TTP。当定义为±1、±2和±3个月时，一致率分别增加至41%-51%、65%-72%和72%-77%。观察时间较长的TTP或以前怀孕的妇女更有可能报告其TTP。研究结果提出了关于自我报告TTP的普遍假设的有效性的问题。回顾TTP可能会引入错误时，估计生育力或分类夫妇的生育状态。
The reliability of retrospective time to pregnancy (TTP) has been established, but its validity has been assessed in only 1 study, which had a short follow-up. Ninety-nine women enrolled a decade earlier in a prospective TTP study were queried by means of mailed questionnaires about the duration of time they had required to become pregnant. Their responses were compared with their earlier data from daily diaries (gold standard). One-third of women could not recall their earlier TTP either in menstrual cycles or calendar months. Only 17%-19% of women recalled their TTP exactly. Agreement increased to 41%-51%, 65%-72%, and 72%-77% when defined as ±1, ±2, and ±3 months, respectively. Women with longer observed TTPs or previous pregnancies were more likely to under-report their TTP. The findings raise questions about the commonly assumed validity of self-reported TTP. Recalled TTP may introduce error when estimating fecundability or classifying couples’ fecundity status.