↓ Skip to main content

Validity over time of self-reported anthropometric variables during follow-up of a large cohort of UK women

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity over time of self-reported anthropometric variables during follow-up of a large cohort of UK women
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0075-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. Lucy Wright, Jane Green, Gillian Reeves, Valerie Beral, Benjamin J. Cairns, on behalf of the Million Women Study collaborators

Abstract

In prospective epidemiological studies, anthropometry is often self-reported and may be subject to reporting errors. Self-reported anthropometric data are reasonably accurate when compared with measurements made at the same time, but reporting errors and changes over time in anthropometric characteristics could potentially generate time-dependent biases in disease-exposure associations. In a sample of about 4000 middle-aged UK women from a large prospective cohort study, we compared repeated self-reports of weight, height, derived body mass index, and waist and hip circumferences, obtained between 1999 and 2008, with clinical measurements taken in 2008. For self-reported and measured values of each variable, mean differences, correlation coefficients, and regression dilution ratios (which measure relative bias in estimates of linear association) were compared over time. For most variables, the differences between self-reported and measured values were small. On average, reported values tended to be lower than measured values (i.e. under-reported) for all variables except height; under-reporting was greatest for waist circumference. As expected, the greater the elapsed time between self-report and measurement, the larger the mean differences between them (each P < 0.001 for trend), and the weaker their correlations (each P < 0.004 for trend). Regression dilution ratios were in general close to 1.0 and did not vary greatly over time. Reporting errors in anthropometric variables may result in small biases to estimates of associations with disease outcomes. Weaker correlations between self-reported and measured values would result in some loss of study power over time. Overall, however, our results provide new evidence that self-reported anthropometric variables remain suitable for use in analyses of associations with disease outcomes in cohort studies over at least a decade of follow-up.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 14 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,430,119
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,739
of 2,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,098
of 278,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#20
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.