ISSN: 2165-7904

Journal de thérapie contre l'obésité et la perte de poids

Accès libre

Notre groupe organise plus de 3 000 séries de conférences Événements chaque année aux États-Unis, en Europe et en Europe. Asie avec le soutien de 1 000 autres Sociétés scientifiques et publie plus de 700 Open Access Revues qui contiennent plus de 50 000 personnalités éminentes, des scientifiques réputés en tant que membres du comité de rédaction.

Les revues en libre accès gagnent plus de lecteurs et de citations
700 revues et 15 000 000 de lecteurs Chaque revue attire plus de 25 000 lecteurs

Indexé dans
  • Index Copernic
  • Google Scholar
  • Ouvrir la porte J
  • JournalSeek de génamique
  • Centre international pour l'agriculture et les biosciences (CABI)
  • Recherche de référence
  • Université Hamdard
  • EBSCO AZ
  • OCLC-WorldCat
  • Catalogue en ligne SWB
  • Texte intégral du CABI
  • Taxi direct
  • Publons
  • Fondation genevoise pour l'enseignement et la recherche médicale
  • Euro Pub
  • Université de Bristol
  • publié
  • ICMJE
Partager cette page

Abstrait

How Well Does Patient Self-Reported Weight Agree with Values in the Electronic Medical Record?

Eugene Oddone, Maren Olsen, Linda Sandersa, Felicia McCant, MSSW, Sophia Hurley, Michael G Goldstein, Susan Raffa and Jane Kim

Objective: Accurate assessment of body weight is an important component of populational studies, interventional trials, and program evaluation. Increasingly electronic medical records (EMR) are being standardized making them potentially useful for future populational studies. However, it is unclear to what degree measures such as weight in these records agree with other assessments of weight like self-report.

Methods: We assessed agreement between EMR and patient self-reported weights from participants in a telephone lifestyle coaching program for U.S. veterans. We compared agreement at a baseline survey conducted at enrollment in the program and again at six-months after completion of the program.

Results: Five-thousand veterans participated in the coaching intervention and had both EMR and self-reported weight values at enrollment. Their mean age was 56 years and 83% were male. Reliability between EMR and selfreport weights was excellent (ICC=0.99). Agreement, assessed with Bland Altman plots, was also excellent. At baseline, self-reported values were an average of 1.0 pound lower compared to EMR values. At the six-month program completion survey reliability remained high (ICC=0.98); however, there was a 4.6 pound average lower selfreported weight compared to EMR values. Under-reported weight values were even larger for veterans who reported losing at least 5% of their baseline body weight by the end of the program; self-reported values for these veterans were 9.4 pounds lower than EMR values.

Conclusions: We believe that EMR weight values are both reliable and show low bias when compared to selfreport making them useful for both population and other studies where weight is of importance; however, selfreported values are not as reliable as EMR values for veterans who report losing weight.