UCL  IRIS
Institutional Research Information Service
UCL Logo
Please report any queries concerning the funding data grouped in the sections named "Externally Awarded" or "Internally Disbursed" (shown on the profile page) to your Research Finance Administrator. Your can find your Research Finance Administrator at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/finance/research/rs-contacts.php by entering your department
Please report any queries concerning the student data shown on the profile page to:

Email: portico-services@ucl.ac.uk

Help Desk: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ras/portico/helpdesk
Publication Detail
Accuracy of patient self-report of stroke: A systematic review from the UK biobank stroke outcomes group
  • Publication Type:
    Journal article
  • Publication Sub Type:
    Review
  • Authors:
    Woodfield R, Sudlow C, Al-Shahi Salman R, Beral V, Chen Y, Chen Z, Dennis M, Kroll M, Green J, Lewington S, Rothwell P, Wardlaw J, Whiteley W, Wild S, Wright L, Zhang Q, Flaig R, Danesh J, Allen N, Atkinson M, Blaveri E, Brannan R, Brayne C, Brophy S, Chaturvedi N, Collins R, De Lusignan S, Denaxas S, Desai P, Eastwood S, Gallacher J, Hemingway H, Hotopf M, Landray M, Lyons R, McGilchrist M, Moller H, O'Neil T, Pringle M, Sprosen T, Strachan D, Sullivan F
  • Publication date:
    10/09/2015
  • Journal:
    PLoS ONE
  • Volume:
    10
  • Issue:
    9
  • Status:
    Published
Abstract
© 2015 Woodfield, Sudlow. Objective: We performed a systematic review of the accuracy of patient self-report of stroke to inform approaches to ascertaining and confirming stroke cases in large prospective studies. Methods: We sought studies comparing patient self-report against a reference standard for stroke. We extracted data on survey method(s), response rates, participant characteristics, the reference standard used, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of self-report. Where possible we also calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and stroke prevalence. Study-level risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies tool (QUADAS-2). Results: From > 1500 identified articles, we included 17 studies. Most asked patients to report a lifetime history of stroke but a few limited recall time to ≤5 years. Some included questions for transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or stroke synonyms. No study was free of risk of bias in the QUADAS-2 assessment, the most frequent causes of bias being incomplete reference standard data, absence of blinding of adjudicators to self-report status, and participant response rates ( < 80%). PPV of self-report ranged from 22-87% (17 studies), sensitivity from 36-98% (10 studies), specificity from 96-99.6% (10 studies), and NPV from 88.2-99.9% (10 studies). PPV increased with stroke prevalence as expected. Among six studies with available relevant data, if confirmed TIAs were considered to be true rather than false positive strokes, PPV of self-report was > 75% in all but one study. It was not possible to assess the influence of recall time or of the question(s) asked on PPV or sensitivity. Conclusions: Characteristics of the study population strongly influence self-report accuracy. In population-based studies with low stroke prevalence, a large proportion of self-reported strokes may be false positives. Self-report is therefore unlikely to be helpful for identifying cases without subsequent confirmation, but may be useful for case ascertainment in combination with other data sources. Copyright:
Publication data is maintained in RPS. Visit https://rps.ucl.ac.uk
 More search options
There are no UCL People associated with this publication
University College London - Gower Street - London - WC1E 6BT Tel:+44 (0)20 7679 2000

© UCL 1999–2011

Search by