Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2014
Diagnostic accuracy of self-reported arthritis in the general adult population is acceptable.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Peeters G M E E Geeske, Alshurafa Mohamad, Schaap Laura, de Vet Henrica C W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the diagnostic accuracy of self-reported osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and arthritis (i.e., unspecified) in the general adult population.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic literature search identified studies reporting diagnostic data on self-reported diagnosis of OA, RA, or arthritis in adults in population-based or primary care samples. Index tests included any form of participant-reported presence of the condition. Reference tests included rheumatologist, physician, or health professional examination; medical record review; physician interview; laboratory tests; or radiography. Relevant articles were scored using the QUADAS tool. Diagnostic values were summarized using pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity.
RESULTS: The search strategy identified 16 articles: 11 for OA, 5 for RA, and 4 for arthritis. Four of 16 articles scored high on quality. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56, 0.88] and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.95) for OA, 0.88 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.97) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.99) for RA, and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.80) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.89) for arthritis. There were not enough studies to conduct meta-analyses for joint-specific OA.
CONCLUSION: The accuracy of self-reported OA and RA is acceptable for large-scale studies in which rheumatologist examination is not feasible. More high-quality studies are required to confirm the accuracy of self-reported arthritis and joint-specific OA.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic literature search identified studies reporting diagnostic data on self-reported diagnosis of OA, RA, or arthritis in adults in population-based or primary care samples. Index tests included any form of participant-reported presence of the condition. Reference tests included rheumatologist, physician, or health professional examination; medical record review; physician interview; laboratory tests; or radiography. Relevant articles were scored using the QUADAS tool. Diagnostic values were summarized using pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity.
RESULTS: The search strategy identified 16 articles: 11 for OA, 5 for RA, and 4 for arthritis. Four of 16 articles scored high on quality. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56, 0.88] and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.95) for OA, 0.88 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.97) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.99) for RA, and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.80) and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.89) for arthritis. There were not enough studies to conduct meta-analyses for joint-specific OA.
CONCLUSION: The accuracy of self-reported OA and RA is acceptable for large-scale studies in which rheumatologist examination is not feasible. More high-quality studies are required to confirm the accuracy of self-reported arthritis and joint-specific OA.