4.6 Article

Medical record validation of maternally reported history of preeclampsia

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 63, Issue 8, Pages 932-937

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.10.010

Keywords

Validation; Self-reported; Preeclampsia; Pregnancy; Hypertensive disorder; Cardiovascular disease

Funding

  1. Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam
  2. Erasmus University Rotterdam
  3. Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: In this study, we assessed the validity of maternally self-reported history of preeclampsia. Study Design and Setting: This study was embedded in the Generation R Study, a population-based prospective cohort study. Data were obtained from prenatal questionnaires and one questionnaire obtained 2 months postpartum from the mother. All women who delivered in hospital and returned a 2-month postpartum questionnaire (n = 4,330) were selected. Results: Of the 4,330 women, 76 out of 152 (50%) women who self-reported preeclampsia appeared not to have had the disease according to the definition (International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy). From the women who self-reported not to have experienced preeclampsia, 11 out of 4,178 (0.3%) had suffered from preeclampsia. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 and 0.98, respectively. Higher maternal education level and parity were associated with a better self-reported diagnosis of preeclampsia. Conclusion: The validity of maternal-recall self-reported preeclampsia is moderate. The reduced self-reported preeclampsia might suggest a lack of accuracy in patient doctor communication with regard to the diagnostic criteria of the disease. Therefore, doctors have to pay attention to make sure that women understand the nature of preeclampsia. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available