Medical record review to recover missing data in a Portuguese birth cohort: Agreement with self-reported data collected by questionnaire and inter-rater variability;Revisión de registros médicos para recuperar datos incompletos en una cohorte de nacimiento portuguesa: concordancia con datos recogidos por cuestionario y variabilidad interobservador

Gaceta Sanitaria

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 211-219

  Alves, Elisabete ^a,b   Lunet, Nuno ^a   Correia, Sofia ^a   Morais, Vítor ^a   Azevedo, Ana ^a   Barros, Henrique ^a  

^a University of Porto   (Portugal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PORTO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Anthropometry; Cohort studies; Epidemiologic methods; Interobserver variability; Medical records

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; BIRTH WEIGHT; BODY MASS; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DELIVERY ROOM; FAMILY HEALTH; FEMALE; GENERAL HOSPITAL; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MATERNAL HYPERTENSION; MEDICAL RECORD; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEWBORN; OBSERVER VARIATION; PORTUGAL; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PREGNANCY DIABETES MELLITUS; PUBLIC HOSPITAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK FACTOR; SELF REPORT; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BIRTH WEIGHT; BODY MASS INDEX; COHORT STUDIES; DATA COLLECTION; DELIVERY ROOMS; DIABETES, GESTATIONAL; FAMILY HEALTH; FEMALE; HEALTH RECORDS, PERSONAL; HOSPITAL RECORDS; HOSPITALS, GENERAL; HOSPITALS, MATERNITY; HOSPITALS, PUBLIC; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION, PREGNANCY-INDUCED; INFANT, NEWBORN; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PORTUGAL; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS, CARDIOVASCULAR; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK FACTORS; SELF REPORT; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79957976731     PISSN: 02139111     EISSN: 15781283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2010.10.013     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Luck J., Peabody J.W., Dresselhaus T.R., et al. How well does chart abstraction measure quality? A prospective comparison of standardized patients with the medical record. Am J Med 2000, 108:642-649.
2. Worster A., Haines T. Advanced statistics: understanding medical record review (MRR) studies. Acad Emerg Med 2004, 11:187-192.
3. St Sauver J.L., Hagen P.T., Cha S.S., et al. Agreement between patient reports of cardiovascular disease and patient medical records. Mayo Clin Proc 2005, 80:203-210.
4. Fouwels A.J., Bredie S.J., Wollersheim H., et al. A retrospective cohort study on lifestyle habits of cardiovascular patients: how informative are medical records?. BMC Health Serv Res 2009, 9:59.
5. Molenaar E.A., Van Ameijden E.J., Grobbee D.E., et al. Comparison of routine care self-reported and biometrical data on hypertension and diabetes: results of the Utrecht Health Project. Eur J Public Health 2007, 17:199-205.
6. Bowlin S.J., Morrill B.D., Nafziger A.N., et al. Reliability and changes in validity of self-reported cardiovascular disease risk factors using dual response: the behavioral risk factor survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1996, 49:511-517.
7. Okura Y., Urban L.H., Mahoney D.W., et al. Agreement between self-report questionnaires and medical record data was substantial for diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction and stroke but not for heart failure. J Clin Epidemiol 2004, 57:1096-1103.
8. Goldman N., Lin I.F., Weinstein M., et al. Evaluating the quality of self-reports of hypertension and diabetes. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:148-154.
9. Bergmann M.M., Jacobs E.J., Hoffmann K., et al. Agreement of self-reported medical history: comparison of an in-person interview with a self-administered questionnaire. Eur J Epidemiol 2004, 19:411-416.
10. Gama H., Correia S., Lunet N. Questionnaire design and the recall of pharmacological treatments: a systematic review. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2009, 18:175-187.
11. Gama H., Correia S., Lunet N. Effect of questionnaire structure on recall of drug utilization in a population of university students. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2009, 9:45.
12. Quigley M.A., Hockley C., Davidson L.L. Agreement between hospital records and maternal recall of mode of delivery: evidence from 12 391 deliveries in the UK Millennium Cohort Study. BJOG 2007, 114:195-200.
13. Rice F., Lewis A., Harold G., et al. Agreement between maternal report and antenatal records for a range of pre and peri-natal factors: the influence of maternal and child characteristics. Early Hum Dev 2007, 83:497-504.
14. Troude P., L'Helias L.F., Raison-Boulley A.M., et al. Perinatal factors reported by mothers: do they agree with medical records?. Eur J Epidemiol 2008, 23:557-564.
15. Hessol N.A., Missett B., Fuentes-Afflick E. Lower agreement on behavioral factors than on medical conditions in self-reported data among pregnant Latina women. Arch Med Res 2004, 35:241-245.
16. Eder C., Fullerton J., Benroth R., et al. Pragmatic strategies that enhance the reliability of data abstracted from medical records. Appl Nurs Res 2005, 18:50-54.
17. Yawn B.P., Wollan P. Interrater reliability: completing the methods description in medical records review studies. Am J Epidemiol 2005, 161:974-977.
18. Reisch L.M., Fosse J.S., Beverly K., et al. Training, quality assurance, and assessment of medical record abstraction in a multisite study. Am J Epidemiol 2003, 157:546-551.
19. Altman D. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall;1991.
20. Abramson J.H. WINPEPI (PEPI-for-Windows): computer programs for epidemiologists. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 2004, 1:6.
21. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2009; 32(Suppl 1):S62-7.
22. Bensen J.T., Liese A.D., Rushing J.T., et al. Accuracy of proband reported family history: the NHLBI Family Heart Study (FHS). Genet Epidemiol 1999, 17:141-150.
23. Kee F., Tiret L., Robo J.Y., et al. Reliability of reported family history of myocardial infarction. BMJ 1993, 307:1528-1530.
24. Murabito J.M., Nam B.H., D'Agostino R.B., et al. Accuracy of offspring reports of parental cardiovascular disease history: the Framingham Offspring Study. Ann Intern Med 2004, 140:434-440.
25. Ramadhani T.A., Canfield M.A., Waller D.K., et al. Medical records vs. interview responses: a comparative analysis of selected variables for linked birth defect cases. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2004, 70:592-596.
26. Macedo M.E., Lima M.J., Silva A.O., et al. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in Portugal: the PAP study. J Hypertens 2005, 23:1661-1666.
27. Scuteri A., Najjar S.S., Orru M., et al. Age- and gender-specific awareness, treatment, and control of cardiovascular risk factors and subclinical vascular lesions in a founder population: the SardiNIA Study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2009, 19:532-541.
28. Gorber S.C., Tremblay M., Moher D., et al. A comparison of direct vs. self-report measures for assessing height, weight and body mass index: a systematic review. Obes Rev 2007, 8:307-326.
29. Brunner Huber L.R. Validity of self-reported height and weight in women of reproductive age. Matern Child Health J 2007, 11:137-144.
30. Lederman S.A., Paxton A. Maternal reporting of prepregnancy weight and birth outcome: consistency and completeness compared with the clinical record. Matern Child Health J 1998, 2:123-126.
31. Oliveira A.F., Gadelha A.M., Leal Mdo C., et al. Study of validity in self-reported weight and height among pregnant women treated at municipal maternity hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Cad Saude Publica 2004, 20(Suppl 1):S92-S100.
32. Schieve L.A., Perry G.S., Cogswell M.E., et al. Validity of self-reported pregnancy delivery weight: an analysis of the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey. NMIHS Collaborative Working Group. Am J Epidemiol 1999, 150:947-956.
33. Craig B.M., Adams A.K. Accuracy of body mass index categories based on self-reported height and weight among women in the United States. Matern Child Health J 2009, 13:489-496.
34. Gilbert E.H., Lowenstein S.R., Koziol-McLain J., et al. Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: where are the methods?. Ann Emerg Med 1996, 27:305-308.
35. Worster A., Bledsoe R.D., Cleve P., et al. Reassessing the methods of medical record review studies in emergency medicine research. Ann Emerg Med 2005, 45:448-451.