Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Rauscher, Garth H
• Johnson, Timothy P
• Cho, Young Ik
• Walk, Jennifer A

Titel

Accuracy of Self-Reported Cancer-Screening Histories: A Meta-analysis

Ist Teil von

• Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention, 2008-04, Vol.17 (4), p.748-757

Ort / Verlag

United States: American Association for Cancer Research

Erscheinungsjahr

2008

Quelle

Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Background: Survey data used to study trends in cancer screening may overestimate screening utilization while potentially underestimating existing disparities in use. Methods: We did a literature review and meta-analysis of validation studies examining the accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories. We calculated summary random-effects estimates for sensitivity and specificity, separately for mammography, clinical breast exam (CBE), Pap smear, prostate-specific antigen testing (PSA), digital rectal exam, fecal occult blood testing, and colorectal endoscopy. Results: Sensitivity was highest for mammogram, CBE, and Pap smear (0.95, 0.94, and 0.93, respectively) and lowest for PSA and digital rectal exam histories (0.71 and 0.75). Specificity was highest for endoscopy, fecal occult blood testing, and PSA (0.90, 0.78, and 0.73, respectively) and lowest for CBE, Pap smear, and mammogram histories (0.26, 0.48, and 0.61, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity summary estimates tended to be lower in predominantly Black and Hispanic samples compared with predominantly White samples. When estimates of self-report accuracy from this meta-analysis were applied to cancer-screening prevalence estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, results suggested that prevalence estimates are artificially increased and disparities in prevalence are artificially decreased by inaccurate self-reports. Conclusions: National survey data are overestimating cancer-screening utilization for several common procedures and may be masking disparities in screening due to racial/ethnic differences in reporting accuracy. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(4):748–57)