The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validity and Reliability of Self-reported Diabetes in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study
Open accessAbstract
The objective of this study was to assess the validity of prevalent and incident self-reported diabetes compared with multiple reference definitions and to assess the reliability (repeatability) of a self-reported diagnosis of diabetes. Data from 10,321 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study who attended visit 4 (1996-1998) were analyzed. Prevalent self-reported diabetes was compared with reference definitions defined by fasting glucose and medication use obtained at visit 4. Incident self-reported diabetes was assessed during annual follow-up telephone calls and was compared with reference definitions defined by fasting glucose, hemoglobin A1c, and medication use obtained during an in-person visit attended by a subsample of participants (n = 1,738) in 2004-2005. The sensitivity of prevalent self-reported diabetes ranged from 58.5% to 70.8%, and specificity ranged from 95.6% to 96.8%, depending on the reference definition. Similarly, the sensitivity of incident self-reported diabetes ranged from 55.9% to 80.4%, and specificity ranged from 84.5% to 90.6%. Percent positive agreement of self-reported diabetes during 9 years of repeat assessments ranged from 92.7% to 95.4%. Both prevalent self-reported diabetes and incident self-reported diabetes were 84%-97% specific and 55%-80% sensitive as compared with reference definitions using glucose and medication criteria. Self-reported diabetes was >92% reliable over time.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus
American Diabetes Association (2010) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc10-s062 · Cited by 5,491
Comparing self-reported and physician-reported medical history
Kehoe, R., Wu, S.-Y., Leske, M. C., & Chylack, L. T. (1994) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117078 · Cited by 441
Cited by
Trends in Prevalence and Control of Diabetes in the United States, 1988–1994 and 1999–2010
Selvin, E., Parrinello, C. M., Sacks, D. B., & Coresh, J. (2014) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m13-2411 · Cited by 532
Self-citationKnott, C., Bell, S., & Britton, A. (2015) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc15-0710 · Cited by 375
Fracture risk in diabetic elderly men: the MrOS study
Napoli, N., Strotmeyer, E. S., Ensrud, K. E., Sellmeyer, D. E., Bauer, D. C., Hoffman, A. R., Dam, T.-T. L., Barrett-Connor, E., Palermo, L., Orwoll, E. S., et al. (2014) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-014-3289-6 · Cited by 272
Selvin, E., Rawlings, A. M., Grams, M., Klein, R., Sharrett, A. R., Steffes, M., & Coresh, J. (2014) · The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology · doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(13)70199-2 · Cited by 262
Self-citationHernandez-Romieu, A. C., Garg, S., Rosenberg, E. S., Thompson-Paul, A. M., & Skarbinski, J. (2017) · BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care · doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2016-000304 · Cited by 213
Metadata
- Authors
- Schneider, A. L. C., Pankow, J. S., Heiss, G., & Selvin, E.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-09-25
- Volume
- 176
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 738-743
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W2137516741
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validity and Reliability of Self-reported Diabetes in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/aje/kws156
- The paper
- Schneider, A. L. C., Pankow, J. S., Heiss, G., & Selvin, E. (2012). Validity and Reliability of Self-reported Diabetes in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. American Journal of Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kws156
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.