Cited by 201Chronic Disease Management StrategiesMental Health Treatment and AccessSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

High agreement of self-report and physician-diagnosed somatic conditions yields limited bias in examining mental–physical comorbidity

Baumeister, Harald, Kriston, Levente, Bengel, Jürgen, Härter, Martin·2010·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective To quantify the misclassification bias of self-reported somatic diseases and its impact on the estimation of comorbidity with mental disorders.Study design and setting Data were drawn from the German National Health Interview and Examination Survey (N=7,124), which assessed both self-reported and physician-diagnosed somatic diseases. Eight chronic diseases were examined: coronary heart disease, heart failure, asthma, chronic bronchitis, diabetes, cancer, arthrosis, and arthritis. Mental disorders were assessed by means of the Munich-Composite International Interview.Results The agreement of case ascertainment by patient self-report and physician diagnosis was high (kappa: 0.74-0.92), except for arthritis (0.53). False-positive and false-negative disease statuses were partly associated with age, sex, socioeconomic status, somatic comorbidities, marital status, and mood and anxiety disorders. In most conditions, the odds ratios (ORs) of comorbid mental disorders based on self-reported diseases were slightly overestimated with regard to mood disorders (relative OR: 0.91-1.38), whereas there proved to be no such trend regarding anxiety disorders (0.82-1.05). Substance disorders were partly biased without showing an interpretable trend across diseases (0.49-2.58).Conclusions Evaluation of mental-physical comorbidity based on self-reported and physician-diagnosed physical conditions yielded similar results, with modestly inflated ORs for mood disorders for several self-reported physical conditions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.009

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baumeister, H., Kriston, L., Bengel, J., & Härter, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Baumeister, Harald
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-05
Volume
63
Issue
5
Pages
558-565
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2045088712
Cited by
201
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 13
FWCI
6.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • Technische Universität Dresden
  • Robert Koch Institut
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
misclassification bias, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, chronic disease, arthritis, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, cancer, arthrosis, asthma, chronic bronchitis
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Mental Disorders, Chronic Disease, Diagnostic Errors, Epidemiologic Methods, Female, Germany, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Self Disclosure, Sex Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Comorbidity, Bias, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review