4.6 Article

Validity of Self-Reported Time to Pregnancy

期刊

EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 56-59

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31818ef47e

关键词

-

资金

  1. Great Lakes Protection Fund [R-M791-3021]
  2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [H751 ATH 298338]
  3. Intramural Research Program of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  4. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [ZIAHD008883] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [Z01HD008729, ZIAHD008729] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The reliability of retrospective time to pregnancy (TTP) has been established, but its validity has been assessed in only I study, which had a short follow-up. Methods: Ninety-nine women enrolled a decade earlier in a prospective TTP study were queried by means of mailed questionnaires about the duration of time they had required to become pregnant. Their responses were compared with their earlier data from daily diaries (gold standard). Results: One-third of women could not recall their earlier TTP either in menstrual cycles or calendar months. Only 17%-19% of women recalled their TTP exactly. Agreement increased to 41%-51%, 65%-72%, and 72%-77% when defined as +/- 1, +/- 2, and +/- 3 months, respectively. Women with longer observed TTPs or previous pregnancies were more likely to under-report their TTP. Conclusions: The findings raise questions about the commonly assumed validity of self-reported TTP. Recalled TTP may introduce error when estimating fecundability or classifying couples' fecundity status.

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

4.6
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