IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0036328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Three Methods to Measure Asthma in Epidemiologic Studies: Results from the Danish National Birth Cohort

Author

Listed:
  • Susanne Hansen
  • Marin Strøm
  • Ekaterina Maslova
  • Erik Lykke Mortensen
  • Charlotta Granström
  • Sjurdur F Olsen

Abstract

Asthma is a heterogeneous outcome and how the condition should be measured to best capture clinically relevant disease in epidemiologic studies remains unclear. We compared three methods of measuring asthma in the Danish National Birth Cohort (n>50.000). When the children were 7 years old, the prevalence of asthma was estimated from a self-administered questionnaire using parental report of doctor diagnoses, ICD-10 diagnoses from a population-based hospitalization registry, and data on anti-asthmatic medication from a population-based prescription registry. We assessed the agreement between the methods using kappa statistics. Highest prevalence of asthma was found using the prescription registry (32.2%) followed by the self-report (12.0%) and the hospitalization registry (6.6%). We found a substantial non-overlap between the methods (kappa = 0.21–0.38). When all three methods were combined the asthma prevalence was 3.6%. In conclusion, self-reported asthma, ICD-10 diagnoses from a hospitalization registry and data on anti-asthmatic medication use from a prescription registry lead to different prevalences of asthma in the same cohort of children. The non-overlap between the methods may be due to different abilities of the methods to identify cases with different phenotypes, in which case they should be treated as separate outcomes in future aetiological studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Susanne Hansen & Marin Strøm & Ekaterina Maslova & Erik Lykke Mortensen & Charlotta Granström & Sjurdur F Olsen, 2012. "A Comparison of Three Methods to Measure Asthma in Epidemiologic Studies: Results from the Danish National Birth Cohort," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-5, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0036328
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0036328
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0036328&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0036328?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0036328. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.