This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1055-9965.EPI-07-2629v1 17/4/748    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Rauscher, G. H. Articles by Walk, J. A. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rauscher, G. H. Articles by Walk, J. A. Related Collections Early Detection Early Detection: Biomarkers: Discovery, Methodology, Validation

Accuracy of Self-Reported Cancer-Screening Histories: A Meta-analysis

¹ Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, ² Survey Research Laboratory, and ³ Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, and ⁴ Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

Requests for reprints: Garth H. Rauscher, School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago, M/C 923, Chicago, IL 60612. Phone: 312-413-4317; Fax: 312-996-0064. E-mail: garthr{at}uic.edu

Background: Survey data used to study trends in cancer screening may overestimate screening utilization while potentially underestimating existing disparities in use.

Methods: We did a literature review and meta-analysis of validation studies examining the accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories. We calculated summary random-effects estimates for sensitivity and specificity, separately for mammography, clinical breast exam (CBE), Pap smear, prostate-specific antigen testing (PSA), digital rectal exam, fecal occult blood testing, and colorectal endoscopy.

Results: Sensitivity was highest for mammogram, CBE, and Pap smear (0.95, 0.94, and 0.93, respectively) and lowest for PSA and digital rectal exam histories (0.71 and 0.75). Specificity was highest for endoscopy, fecal occult blood testing, and PSA (0.90, 0.78, and 0.73, respectively) and lowest for CBE, Pap smear, and mammogram histories (0.26, 0.48, and 0.61, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity summary estimates tended to be lower in predominantly Black and Hispanic samples compared with predominantly White samples. When estimates of self-report accuracy from this meta-analysis were applied to cancer-screening prevalence estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, results suggested that prevalence estimates are artificially increased and disparities in prevalence are artificially decreased by inaccurate self-reports.

Conclusions: National survey data are overestimating cancer-screening utilization for several common procedures and may be masking disparities in screening due to racial/ethnic differences in reporting accuracy. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(4):748–57)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. M. Jones, S. J. Mongin, D. Lazovich, T. R. Church, and M. W. Yeazel Validity of Four Self-reported Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities in a General Population: Differences over Time and by Intervention Assignment Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 777 - 784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. G. Zapka Validation of Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviors Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 745 - 747. [Full Text] [PDF]