不同调查工具在评估新发和现患肿瘤及医疗记录方面的一致性——海因茨·尼克斯多夫召回研究结果

Agreement between different survey instruments to assess incident and prevalent tumors and medical records - results of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study.

作者信息

Bokhof Beate, Eisele Lewin, Erbel Raimund, Moebus Susanne

机构信息

Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany.

出版信息

Cancer Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;38(2):181-92. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2014.01.002. Epub 2014 Feb 15.

DOI:10.1016/j.canep.2014.01.002

PMID:24534296

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The validity of participants' self-reports via questionnaires or interviews in epidemiological studies remains questionable. We examined the agreement of tumors, reported via different survey instruments, with medical records.

METHODS

Within the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study, comprising 4814 subjects aged 45-75 years, tumors were assessed via different survey tools at baseline and 8-year-follow up (FU): personal interviews (CAPI), self-administered questionnaires (SA-Q), physical examinations, short questionnaire/non-responder questionnaire (S-/N-Q) and telephone interviews. Information on each self-reported tumor was coded via ICD-10, WHO-Version 2010, and evaluated against medical records.

RESULTS

During FU, 95% of 1083 self-reported incident tumors in 623 individuals, at baseline, 65% of 473 prevalent tumors in 406 individuals could be evaluated. Agreement of the main assessment tools, CAPI and SA-Q, with medical records was 90.1% and 88.4% (FU) and 91.0% (baseline-CAPI). Best agreement was in tumors of prostate (baseline-CAPI: 97.8%; 5-year-FU-CAPI: 96.9%, SA-Q: 95.7%) and breast (baseline-CAPI: 93.2%; 5-year-FU-CAPI: 100.0%, SA-Q: 98.8%).

DISCUSSION

Agreement of CAPI and SA-Q with medical records was good. To assess incident tumors, SA-Q emerged as favorable, as it is least expensive and easy to be applied. Especially for tumors of prostate and breast, cost-intensive and time-consuming validation with medical records may not be necessary.

摘要

目的

在流行病学研究中，通过问卷调查或访谈获取的参与者自我报告的有效性仍存在疑问。我们研究了通过不同调查工具报告的肿瘤与病历之间的一致性。

方法

在海因茨·尼克斯多夫召回研究中，纳入了4814名年龄在45 - 75岁之间的受试者，在基线和8年随访（FU）时通过不同的调查工具评估肿瘤：个人访谈（CAPI）、自填式问卷（SA - Q）、体格检查、简短问卷/无应答问卷（S - /N - Q）和电话访谈。每个自我报告肿瘤的信息按照2010年世界卫生组织版本的ICD - 10进行编码，并与病历进行对照评估。

结果

在随访期间，623名个体中1083例自我报告的新发肿瘤中有95%、基线时406名个体中473例现患肿瘤中有65%可进行评估。主要评估工具CAPI和SA - Q与病历的一致性在随访时为90.1%和88.4%，基线时CAPI为91.0%。一致性最好的是前列腺肿瘤（基线时CAPI：97.8%；5年随访时CAPI：96.9%，SA - Q：95.7%）和乳腺肿瘤（基线时CAPI：93.2%；5年随访时CAPI：100.0%，SA - Q：98.8%）。