4.1 Article

Inter-rater reliability of self-reported response on foreskin status in questionnaire among Japanese adult men

期刊

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS
卷 88, 期 7, 页码 534-U115

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/sextrans-2011-050294

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Public Health, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To determine whether foreskin status is a measurable marker for evaluating the effect of the foreskin on sexually transmitted infections. Methods Inter-rater comparison of the responses on foreskin status and circumcision in a self-report questionnaire with the findings of a physical examination by an experienced well-trained urologist was performed for patients who visited a healthcare facility in Kanagawa, Japan. Foreskin status was defined using a five-point graphical scale based on the degree to which the foreskin covers the foreskin and the glans penis in a non-erectile condition: type 1, a fully exposed glans penis; types 2-4, the glans penis partly covered by the foreskin and type 5, phimosis. Linear weighted kappa and per cent agreement were used to evaluate the reliability of responses. Results Among 188 participants who were evaluated about their foreskin status, linear weighted kappa and per cent agreement were 0.74% and 68.4%, respectively. Linear weighted kappa improved from 0.74 to 0.80 when the number of categories was changed to three. All the self-reported responses on circumcision were in agreement with the findings of the physical examination. Seventeen participants (9.0%) had been circumcised, and among them, three (17.6%) had approximately one-half of their glans penis covered by the foreskin. In 90 among the 171 uncircumcised participants (52.6%), the foreskin did not cover the glans penis. Conclusions The self-reported response on foreskin status in this questionnaire has sufficient reliability to replace physical examination, and this questionnaire can facilitate further studies about the effect of foreskin on sexually transmitted infections.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据