Medical record review to recover missing data in a Portuguese birth cohort: agreement with self-reported data collected by questionnaire and inter-rater variability
Medical record review to recover missing data in a Portuguese birth cohort: agreement with self-reported data collected by questionnaire and inter-rater variability
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.gaceta.2010.10.013
复制
发表时间：
2011-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Barros, Henrique
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alves, Elisabete;Lunet, Nuno;Barros, Henrique
目的：为了评估产量的医疗记录审查，以恢复缺失的数据最初收集的问卷调查，分析这两个数据源之间的协议，并确定interobserver变异在clinical record review.Methods：我们分析了出生队列的8,127名妇女谁是连续招募后，从2005-2006年出生的数据。在葡萄牙波尔图的所有公共产科单位进行了招聘。我们回顾了3，657名在基线问卷中缺失数据的女性的医疗记录，并通过使用来自参与者的信息评估了这两个来源之间的一致性。通过使用400个随机选择的临床records.Results：妊娠并发症和产妇人体测量参数的数据进行了评估观察者间的变异性成功地恢复。调查问卷与家族史数据记录之间的一致性是公平的，特别是对于心血管疾病[k = 0.27; 95%置信区间（95%CI）：0.23-0.32]。糖尿病个人史的一致性最高（k = 0.82; 95%CI 0.70-0.93），而高血压的一致性中等（k = 0.60; 95%CI 0.50-0.69）。在10.3%的妇女中观察到孕前体重指数分类的差异。数据高度一致的两个审查员，发现妊娠期糖尿病（k = 1.00）和出生体重（99.5%一致性）的协议最高。结论：数据从医疗记录和问卷调查是一致的妊娠和众所周知的危险因素。观察者间的低变异性并没有威胁到我们数据的精确性。(C)2010年SESPAS。出版社：Elsevier Espana，S.L. All rights reserved.
Objectives: To assess the yield of medical record review to recover missing data originally collected by questionnaire, to analyze the agreement between these two data sources and to determine interobserver variability in clinical record review.Methods: We analyzed data from a birth cohort of 8,127 women who were consecutively recruited after giving birth from 2005-2006. Recruitment was conducted at all public maternity units of Porto, Portugal. We reviewed the medical records of 3,657 women with missing data in the baseline questionnaire and assessed agreement between these two sources by using information from participants with data from both sources. Interobserver variability was assessed by using 400 randomly selected clinical records.Results: Data on pregnancy complications and maternal anthropometric parameters were successfully recovered. Agreement between the questionnaire and records in family history data was fair, particularly for cardiovascular disease [k = 0.27; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.23-0.32]. The highest agreement was observed for personal history of diabetes (k = 0.82; 95%CI 0.70-0.93), while agreement for hypertension was moderate (k = 0.60; 95%CI 0.50-0.69). Discrepancies in prepregnancy body mass index classes were observed in 10.3% women. Data were highly consistent between the two reviewers, with the highest agreement found for gestational diabetes (k = 1.00) and birth weight (99.5% concordance).Conclusion: Data from the medical records and questionnaire were concordant with regard to pregnancy and well-known risk factors. The low interobserver variability did not threaten the precision of our data. (C) 2010 SESPAS. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L. All rights reserved.