Accuracy of self-reports of Pap and mammography screening compared to medical record: a meta-analysis
- 434 Downloads
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of self-reported Pap smear and mammography screening compared to medical record.
About 37 articles were reviewed and accuracy indices of self-report were calculated. Meta-analysis with random effects was used. Study heterogeneity was investigated and meta-regressions were done including in the models those factors that were hypothesized, a priori, to potentially explain heterogeneity.
Pooled sensitivity and specificity for Pap recall were 94.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]; 93.0%–96.4%) and 47.4% (95% CI; 39.0%–55.7%), and for mammography were 94.9% (95% CI; 93.4%–96.4%) and 61.8% (95% CI; 54.1%–69.5%), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity for all indices. Stratifying by the study population source (population versus clinic-based), population characteristics (minority or low socio-economic status versus not), length of recall (within past 12 months versus longer), and expected completeness of the medical record (authors searched radiology or pathology reports of all likely facilities women may have attended, versus studies that did not) did not eliminate heterogeneity.
Women tend to over-report their participation in Pap and mammography screening in a given timeframe. The pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution due to unexplained heterogeneity.
KeywordsPapanicolaou Smear Mammography Health surveys Bias Review systematic Meta-analysis
This was an un-funded study, supported with in-kind contributions from the Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University.
- 2.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2002) Screening for breast cancer. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 4.McCarthy EP, Burns RB, Coughlin SS et al (1998) Mammography use helps to explain differences in breast cancer stage at diagnosis between older black and white women. Ann Intern Med 128:773–775Google Scholar
- 7.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention DoCPaC (2004) The National breast and cervical cancer detection program: saving lives through screening. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
- 18.Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D et al (2002) American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 52:346–362Google Scholar
- 28.Bowman JA, Redman S, Dickinson JA, Gibberd R, Sanson-Fisher RW (1991) The accuracy of Pap smear utilization self-report: a methodological consideration in cervical screening research. Health Serv Res 26:197–207Google Scholar
- 31.Walter SD, Clarke EA, Hatcher H, Sitt LW (1988) A comparison of physician and patient reports of Pap smear history. Am J Epidemiol 41:401–410Google Scholar
- 34.Fruchter RG, Rones K, Roth T, Webber CA, Camilien L, Boyce JG (1992) Pap smear histories in a medical clinic: accuracy of patients’ self-reports. NY State J Med 92:421–424Google Scholar
- 35.McKenna MT, Speers M, Mallin K, Warnecke R (1992) Agreement between patient self-reports and medical records for Pap smear histories. Am J Prev Health 8:287–291Google Scholar
- 46.Hiatt RA, Perez-Stable EJ, Quesenberry C Jr, Sabogal F, Otero-Sabogal R, McPhee SJ (1995) Agreement between self-reported early cancer detection practices and medical audits among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white health plan members in Northern California. Prev Med 24:278–285. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1995.1045 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 54.Suarez L, Goldman DA, Weiss NS (1995) Validity of Pap smear and mammogram self-reports in a low-income Hispanic population. Am J Prev Health 11:94–98Google Scholar