The predictive value of ePAQ in the urodynamic diagnoses—A prospective cohort study

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanteela McCooty ◽  
Peter Nightingale ◽  
Pallavi Latthe
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Prospective Cohort Study ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Prospective Cohort

scholarly journals Validity of self-reported diagnoses of gynaecological and breast cancers in a prospective cohort study: the Japan Nurses’ Health Study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e045491
Author(s):  
Kiyoshi Takamatsu ◽  
Yuki Ideno ◽  
Mami Kikuchi ◽  
Toshiyuki Yasui ◽  
Naho Maruoka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Prospective Cohort Study ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Health Study ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Expert Review ◽  
The Mean

ObjectivesTo validate the self-reported diagnoses of gynaecological and breast cancers in a nationwide prospective cohort study of nursing professionals: the Japan Nurses’ Health Study (JNHS).Design and settingRetrospective analysis of the JNHS.Participants and measuresData were reviewed for 15 717 subjects. The mean age at baseline was 41.6±8.3 years (median: 41), and the mean follow-up period was 10.5±3.8 years (median: 12). Participants are regularly mailed a follow-up questionnaire once every 2 years. Respondents who self-reported a positive cancer diagnosis were sent an additional confirmation questionnaire and contacted the diagnosing facility to confirm the diagnosis based on medical records. A review panel of experts verified the disease status. Regular follow-up, confirmation questionnaires and expert review were validated for their positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).ResultsNew incidences were verified in 37, 47, 26 and 300 cervical, endometrial, ovarian and breast cancer cases, respectively. The estimated incidence rates were 22.0, 25.4, 13.8 and 160.4 per 100 000 person-years. These were comparable with those of national data from regional cancer registries in Japan. For regular follow-up, the corresponding PPVs for cervical, endometrial, ovarian and breast cancer were 16.9%, 54.2%, 45.1% and 81.4%, and the NPVs were 100%, 99.9%, 99.9% and 99.9%, respectively. Adding the confirmation questionnaire improved the PPVs to 31.5%, 88.9%, 76.7% and 99.9%; the NPVs were uniformly 99.9%. Expert review yielded PPVs and NPVs that were all ~100%.ConclusionsGynaecological cancer cannot be accurately assessed by self-reporting alone. Additionally, the external validity of cancer incidence in this cohort was confirmed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document