I den Tonkelaar1. 1. Julius Center for Patient Oriented Research, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study validity and reproducibility of self reported age at menopause. METHODS: Subjects were 1003 and 4892 Dutch women respectively aged 58-73, who participated in a population-based breast cancer screening project. The median time since menopause was 7 years for the validity study. The time span between the two questionnaires in the reproducibility study was 7-9 years. RESULTS: Of the women with a natural menopause, 70% recalled their age at menopause correctly to within one year. For women with a surgical menopause this percentage was 80%. The validity decreased with increasing number of years since menopause. Reproducibility to within one year was 71% for women with a natural menopause and 79% for women with a surgical menopause; 95% of the women were consistent in reporting whether they had had a natural or a surgical menopause. CONCLUSIONS: As a consequence of this misclassification, the effect of age at menopause may be underestimated in studies relating self reported age at menopause to disease occurrence or mortality.
OBJECTIVES: To study validity and reproducibility of self reported age at menopause. METHODS: Subjects were 1003 and 4892 Dutch women respectively aged 58-73, who participated in a population-based breast cancer screening project. The median time since menopause was 7 years for the validity study. The time span between the two questionnaires in the reproducibility study was 7-9 years. RESULTS: Of the women with a natural menopause, 70% recalled their age at menopause correctly to within one year. For women with a surgical menopause this percentage was 80%. The validity decreased with increasing number of years since menopause. Reproducibility to within one year was 71% for women with a natural menopause and 79% for women with a surgical menopause; 95% of the women were consistent in reporting whether they had had a natural or a surgical menopause. CONCLUSIONS: As a consequence of this misclassification, the effect of age at menopause may be underestimated in studies relating self reported age at menopause to disease occurrence or mortality.
Authors: Kristel M van Asselt; Helen S Kok; Hein Putter; Cisca Wijmenga; Petra H M Peeters; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Diederick E Grobbee; Egbert R te Velde; Sietse Mosselman; Peter L Pearson Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2004-02-04 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Pauline M Maki; Lorraine Dennerstein; Margaret Clark; Janet Guthrie; Pamela LaMontagne; Deanne Fornelli; Deborah Little; Victor W Henderson; Susan M Resnick Journal: Brain Res Date: 2010-11-13 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: C L Carty; K L Spencer; V W Setiawan; L Fernandez-Rhodes; J Malinowski; S Buyske; A Young; N W Jorgensen; I Cheng; C S Carlson; K Brown-Gentry; R Goodloe; A Park; N I Parikh; B Henderson; L Le Marchand; J Wactawski-Wende; M Fornage; T C Matise; L A Hindorff; A M Arnold; C A Haiman; N Franceschini; U Peters; D C Crawford Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Claire Z Kalpakjian; Elisabeth H Quint; Tamara Bushnik; Gianna M Rodriguez; Melissa Sendroy Terrill Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Riley Bove; Elizabeth Secor; Lori B Chibnik; Lisa L Barnes; Julie A Schneider; David A Bennett; Philip L De Jager Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Katherine K McKnight; Melissa F Wellons; Cynthia K Sites; David L Roth; Jeff M Szychowski; Jewell H Halanych; Mary Cushman; Monika M Safford Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-05-14 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Sarah E Daugherty; James V Lacey; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Yikyung Park; Robert N Hoover; Debra T Silverman Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 7.396