Validity of self-reported hysterectomy and oophorectomy in a population-based cohort: The HUNT study

IF 4.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2024-05-27 DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.17859
Tina E. Rosland, Nora Johansen, Bjørn O. Åsvold, Are H. Pripp, Astrid H. Liavaag, Trond M. Michelsen
{"title":"Validity of self-reported hysterectomy and oophorectomy in a population-based cohort: The HUNT study","authors":"Tina E. Rosland,&nbsp;Nora Johansen,&nbsp;Bjørn O. Åsvold,&nbsp;Are H. Pripp,&nbsp;Astrid H. Liavaag,&nbsp;Trond M. Michelsen","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To validate self-reported hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Validation study.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting</h3>\n \n <p>Large population-based cohort study in Norway: The Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Population</h3>\n \n <p>The Trøndelag Health Study 2 and 3 (HUNT2 and HUNT3) included questions on gynaecological history. Women who answered questions regarding hysterectomy and/or oophorectomy were included. In total, 30 263 women were included from HUNT2 (1995–1997) and 23 138 from HUNT3 (2006–2008), of which 16 261 attended both HUNT2 and HUNT3.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We compared self-reported hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy with electronic hospital procedure codes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\n \n <p>Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of self-reported hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy, by comparing with hospital procedure codes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Self-reported hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy in HUNT2 and/or HUNT3 both had specificity and negative predictive value above 99%. Self-reported hysterectomy had a sensitivity of 95.9%, and for bilateral oophorectomy sensitivity was 91.2%. Positive predictive value of self-reported hysterectomy was 85.8%, but for self-reported bilateral oophorectomy it was 65.4%.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Self-reported hysterectomy corresponded quite well with hospital data and can be used in epidemiological studies. Self-reported bilateral oophorectomy, on the other hand, had low positive predictive value, and results based on such data should be interpreted with caution. Women who report no previous hysterectomy or bilateral oophorectomy can safely be classified as unexposed to these surgeries.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.17859","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.17859","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To validate self-reported hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy.

Design

Validation study.

Setting

Large population-based cohort study in Norway: The Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT).

Population

The Trøndelag Health Study 2 and 3 (HUNT2 and HUNT3) included questions on gynaecological history. Women who answered questions regarding hysterectomy and/or oophorectomy were included. In total, 30 263 women were included from HUNT2 (1995–1997) and 23 138 from HUNT3 (2006–2008), of which 16 261 attended both HUNT2 and HUNT3.

Methods

We compared self-reported hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy with electronic hospital procedure codes.

Main outcome measures

Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of self-reported hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy, by comparing with hospital procedure codes.

Results

Self-reported hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy in HUNT2 and/or HUNT3 both had specificity and negative predictive value above 99%. Self-reported hysterectomy had a sensitivity of 95.9%, and for bilateral oophorectomy sensitivity was 91.2%. Positive predictive value of self-reported hysterectomy was 85.8%, but for self-reported bilateral oophorectomy it was 65.4%.

Conclusions

Self-reported hysterectomy corresponded quite well with hospital data and can be used in epidemiological studies. Self-reported bilateral oophorectomy, on the other hand, had low positive predictive value, and results based on such data should be interpreted with caution. Women who report no previous hysterectomy or bilateral oophorectomy can safely be classified as unexposed to these surgeries.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以人口为基础的队列中自我报告子宫切除术和输卵管切除术的有效性:HUNT 研究。
目的:验证自我报告的子宫切除术和双侧输卵管切除术:验证自我报告的子宫切除术和双侧输卵管切除术:验证研究:挪威大型人群队列研究:特伦德拉格健康研究(HUNT):特伦德拉格健康研究(HUNT):特伦德拉格健康研究 2 和 3(HUNT2 和 HUNT3)包括妇科病史问题。回答了子宫切除术和/或输卵管切除术相关问题的妇女被纳入其中。总共有 30 263 名妇女参加了 HUNT2(1995-1997 年),23 138 名妇女参加了 HUNT3(2006-2008 年),其中 16 261 名妇女同时参加了 HUNT2 和 HUNT3:我们将自我报告的子宫切除术和双侧输卵管切除术与电子医院手术代码进行了比较:通过与医院手术代码进行比较,得出自我报告的子宫切除术和双侧输卵管切除术的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值:HUNT2和/或HUNT3中自我报告的子宫切除术和双侧输卵管切除术的特异性和阴性预测值均高于99%。自我报告子宫切除术的灵敏度为 95.9%,双侧输卵管切除术的灵敏度为 91.2%。自述子宫切除术的阳性预测值为 85.8%,而自述双侧输卵管切除术的阳性预测值为 65.4%:自我报告的子宫切除术与医院数据非常吻合,可用于流行病学研究。另一方面,自我报告的双侧输卵管切除术的阳性预测值较低,因此应谨慎解释基于此类数据的结果。对于那些自称未接受过子宫切除术或双侧输卵管切除术的妇女,可以放心地将其归类为未接触过这些手术的妇女。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
5.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BJOG is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The Journal publishes original, peer-reviewed work in all areas of obstetrics and gynaecology, including contraception, urogynaecology, fertility, oncology and clinical practice. Its aim is to publish the highest quality medical research in women''s health, worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Trustworthiness criteria for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies: OBGYN journal guidelines. Recurrence of Severe Maternal Morbidity and Transfusion During Delivery Hospitalisations: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Pre-Pregnancy Chronic Conditions: Mental Health is a Burgeoning Problem. Prevention of Intrauterine Adhesions: The Way to Go. Role of Child Marriage and Adolescent Childbearing on Hysterectomy Among Married Women in India: A Cross-Sectional and Time-to-Event Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1