Cited by 76Bone health and osteoporosis researchHip and Femur FracturesBone fractures and treatments

The validity of self-reported fractures among Danish female nurses: comparison with fractures registered in the Danish National Hospital Register

Hundrup, Yrsa Andersen, Høidrup, Susanne, Obel, Erik B., Rasmussen, Niels Kr.·2004·Scandinavian Journal of Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The authors compared self-reported non-spine fractures obtained from a cohort of Danish female nurses with fracture diagnoses registered in the Danish National Hospital Register (DNHR). METHOD: The self-reported fracture history was obtained from a questionnaire and was related to fracture information registered with the DNHR by means of the unique person identification code of Danish citizens. A total of 166 self-reported hip fractures, 391 self-reported wrist fractures, and 121 self-reported upper arm fractures were available for the comparison. The self-reported fractures were initially compared with the anatomic specific fracture diagnoses registered in the DNHR. Second, the comparison also included fracture diagnoses of adjacent skeletal sites (unspecific fracture diagnoses). RESULTS: The positive predictive value of a positive report of hip fracture was 89%. Inclusion of unspecific registered hip fractures increased the positive predictive value to 94%. The same figures for wrist fractures were 75% and 84%, respectively, and for upper arm fractures 54% and 83%, respectively. The predictive value of a negative report of hip fracture was 99.5%. The fracture year was correctly reported in 76% of the hip fracture cases, 81% of the wrist fracture cases, and 82% of the upper arm fracture cases. Predictors of false-positive report of fractures were young age ( < 60 years), report of indoor falls in the previous year, and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT). CONCLUSION: The authors conclude that self-report of hip, wrist, or upper arm fractures among Danish nurses is relatively accurate but varies by the site of fracture. False positive reports of fracture introduce only modest bias fracture risk estimates and tend to dilute the association between exposures and fracture.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14034940310017490

Cites

23 of 23 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hundrup, Y. A., Høidrup, S., Obel, E. B., & Rasmussen, N. K.
Affiliations
  • Danish National Institute of Public Health (DK)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
Published
2004-03
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
136-143
ISSN
  • 1403-4948 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-1905
OpenAlex
W1967626536
Cited by
76
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hip and Femur Fractures
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Bone fractures and treatments
Keywords
hip fracture, wrist fractures, upper arm fractures, female nurses, positive predictive value, hormone replacement therapy, falls, fracture risk prediction
MeSH terms
Aged, Denmark, False Positive Reactions, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Nurses, Registries, Self Disclosure, Reproducibility of Results, Fractures, Bone

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