Search

Purpose: To determine whether levels of pre-operative pain as recalled by a patient in the post-operative phase are possibly overestimated or underestimated compared to prospectively scored pain levels. If so, a subsequent misclassification may induce recall bias that may lead to an erroneous effect outcome. Methods: Data of seven retrospective cohort studies on surgery for chronic abdominal wall and groin pain using three different pain scores were systematically analyzed. First, it was assessed whether retrospectively acquired pre-operative pain levels, as scored by the patient in the post-operative phase, differed from prospectively obtained pre-operative pain scores. Second, it was determined if errors associated with retrospectively obtained pain scores potentially lead to a misclassification of treatment outcome. Third, a meta-analysis established whether recall misclassifications, if present, affected overall study conclusions. Results: Pain data of 313 patients undergoing remedial surgery were evaluated. The overall prevalence of misclassification due to a recall error was 13.7%. Patients not benefitting from surgery ('failures') judged their pre-operative pain level as more severe than it actually was. In contrast, patients who were pain free after remedial surgery ('successes') underestimated pre-operative pain scores. Recall misclassifications were significantly more present in failures than in successful patients (odds ratio 2.4 [95% CI 1.2–4.8]). Conclusion: One in seven patients undergoing remedial groin surgery is misclassified on the basis of retrospectively obtained pre-operative pain scores (success instead of failure, or vice versa). Misclassifications are relatively more present in failures after surgery. Therefore, the effect size of a therapy erroneously depends on its success rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Fracture history is an important component of osteoporosis diagnosis in children. One in six parentally reported lifetime fractures in children were not confirmed on review of radiographs. Care should be taken to avoid unnecessary investigations for possible osteoporosis due to parental over-reporting of soft tissue injuries as fractures. Introduction: The diagnosis of osteoporosis in children requires either a vertebral compression fracture, or a significant fracture history (defined as ≥2 long bone fractures <10 years or ≥3 long bone fractures <19 years, excluding high impact fractures) and low bone mineral density. As children with frequent fractures might benefit from further evaluation, we determined whether parental reports of lifetime fracture were accurate compared to radiological reports and if they appropriately selected children for further consideration of osteoporosis. Methods: Parents of children (<18 years) with a musculoskeletal injury completed a questionnaire on their child's fracture history, including age, site and mechanism of previous fracture(s). Radiological reports were reviewed to confirm the fracture. Results: Six hundred sixty parents completed the questionnaire and reported 276 previous fractures in 207 children. An injury treated at our hospital was recorded in 214 of the 276 parentally reported fractures. Thirty-four of 214 (16 %) were not a confirmed fracture. An injury was recorded for all parentally reported fractures in 150 children, but for 21 % children, there were inaccurate details (no evidence of fracture, incorrect site or forgotten fractures) on parent report. Eighteen of 150 children had a significant fracture history on parental report alone, but following review of radiology reports, 2 of 18 (11 %) did not have clinically significant fracture histories. Conclusions: Approximately one in six fractures reported by parents to have occurred in their child's lifetime had not resulted in a fracture. One in nine children with a significant fracture history could have been investigated unnecessarily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Fertility preservation is an important issue for premenopausal cancer patients; however, not all patients receive counseling about chemotherapy-induced infertility and potential mitigation strategies. We aimed to identify characteristics of premenopausal breast cancer patients less likely to receive fertility counseling. We also investigated patient recall of chart-documented fertility discussions and patient attitudes toward fertility preservation.Methods: The study was approved by our institution's Institutional Review Board. All female patients with invasive primary breast cancer of any type, aged 40 or younger at the time of diagnosis, who were diagnosed during or up to 5 years prior to the study period were eligible. The study was conducted between February 2012 and October 2013. Enrolled patients completed an anonymous survey, and their medical charts were subsequently reviewed to identify provider documentation of fertility discussions, referral to fertility specialists, or implementation of fertility preservation. Patient comments regarding their fertility were solicited and examined thematically.Results: Forty-nine patients consented to participate. Fertility discussions were documented by providers in 55% of patients. Patients aged over 35 and multiparous patients were significantly less likely than their counterparts (p < 0.01 in both cases) to have had chart-documented fertility discussions. Only 52% of patients with chart-documented discussions recalled having had such a conversation. Patient comments highlighted the difficulty of considering fertility at the time of diagnosis and also the risks and obstacles facing fertility preservation.Conclusions: Despite increasing awareness, fertility is not universally discussed with premenopausal breast cancer patients at the time of diagnosis; older and multiparous patients are at particular risk of not receiving fertility counseling. Even when such discussions are documented, only about half of patients recall the conversation. Patient-reported barriers to fertility preservation include lack of education combined with the stress of diagnosis, financial costs, and perceived treatment toxicities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patient reporting of type 2 diabetes symptoms in a questionnaire with a 7-day recall period was expected to be different from symptom reports using a 7-day diary with repeated 24-h recall based on cognitive theory of memory processes and prior literature. This study compared these two types of recall in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: One hundred and forty adults with T2D completed a daily diary for 7 days containing 9 T2D-related symptom and impact items. On day 7, patients completed the same items with a 7-day recall period. We examined the concordance of 7-day recall with summary descriptors of the daily reports and compared the scores and the discriminant ability of 7-day recall and mean of daily reports. Results: Seven-day recall was most concordant with the mean of daily reports. The average difference in scores was small (range 0.22-0.77 on 11-point scale) and less than 0.5 standard deviations. For some items, the difference was positively associated with the variation in daily reports. The discriminant ability was comparable. Conclusions: In this study population, a questionnaire with 7-day recall provided information consistent with a daily diary measure of the average week-long experience of T2D symptoms and impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Self-reported perinatal exposures to chemicals or pollutant sources in case–control studies of birth defects may be inaccurate due to misreporting among mothers. In a case–control study of neural tube defects delivered in California in 1987–1988, mothers of case and control infants were asked whether they lived within 0.25 mile (400 m) of agricultural crops. Responses were compared against a gold standard derived from historical agricultural land-use survey maps. The odds ratio for self-reported proximity to any crops (1.62, 95% confidence interval: 1.08, 2.43) appeared to be positively biased compared with the estimate for map-based proximity (1.17, 95% confidence interval: 0.79, 1.71). This pattern was also observed for proximity to specific crops such as nonpermanent and orchard crops. For vineyards, however, we observed an increased risk associated with map-based proximity (odds ratio=2.45, 95% confidence interval: 1.08, 5.58) but not with self-reported proximity (1.09, 95% confidence interval: 0.51, 2.34). The sensitivity of self-reported proximity to any crops was greater for case (65.7%) than control mothers (50.0%) while specificity was about the same for case and control mothers (87.5 vs. 89.3%), suggesting that control mothers under-reported proximity to crops. Differential reporting was also observed between geographic regions, urban and rural residents, and across levels of maternal employment and education. These results suggest differential reporting between case and control mothers as well as an influence from maternal demographic characteristics on reporting accuracy.Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2006) 16, 147–155. doi:10.1038/sj.jea.7500444; published online 27 July 2005 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]