Accuracy of subjective hot flush reports compared with continuous sternal skin conductance monitoring

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

77 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 subjective and 1 objective method for assessing hot flush frequency: prospective paper hot flush diaries, prospective electronic event markers, and the Biolog ambulatory sternal skin conductance monitor. METHODS: Fifty-five breast cancer survivors provided two 24-hour periods of data, 1 week apart, at baseline before being randomized for an intervention study. Women completed a prospective paper hot flush diary and pressed an event marker to subjectively record each hot flush they experienced while wearing a sternal skin conductance monitor. RESULTS: Sensitivity was uniformly low (< 50%) for both subjective methods at each week. The estimated probability that a woman would record a true monitor-verified hot flush subjectively by diary or event marker was between 36% and 50% of the time if she was awake and between 22% and 42% of the time if she was asleep. Underreporting of diary hot flushes consequently resulted in more than 50% missing severity and bother ratings. Specificity was high (96-98%) for both the diary and event marker, for both weeks, and for both waking and sleeping times. The positive predictive value was low (34-52%), and negative predictive value was high (94-97%). This indicates that, rather than overreporting hot flushes when they did not exist, women tended to underreport hot flushes when they did exist. CONCLUSION: Use of prospective paper hot flush diaries and electronic event markers may seriously underestimate hot flush frequency and result in missed intensity and bother ratings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1322-1326
Number of pages5
JournalObstetrics and Gynecology
Volume104
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2004

Fingerprint

Skin
Survivors
Breast Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Accuracy of subjective hot flush reports compared with continuous sternal skin conductance monitoring. / Carpenter, Janet; Monahan, Patrick; Azzouz, Faouzi.

In: Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 104, No. 6, 12.2004, p. 1322-1326.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{689469c0020540a19c812cbeb93a508d,
title = "Accuracy of subjective hot flush reports compared with continuous sternal skin conductance monitoring",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 subjective and 1 objective method for assessing hot flush frequency: prospective paper hot flush diaries, prospective electronic event markers, and the Biolog ambulatory sternal skin conductance monitor. METHODS: Fifty-five breast cancer survivors provided two 24-hour periods of data, 1 week apart, at baseline before being randomized for an intervention study. Women completed a prospective paper hot flush diary and pressed an event marker to subjectively record each hot flush they experienced while wearing a sternal skin conductance monitor. RESULTS: Sensitivity was uniformly low (< 50{\%}) for both subjective methods at each week. The estimated probability that a woman would record a true monitor-verified hot flush subjectively by diary or event marker was between 36{\%} and 50{\%} of the time if she was awake and between 22{\%} and 42{\%} of the time if she was asleep. Underreporting of diary hot flushes consequently resulted in more than 50{\%} missing severity and bother ratings. Specificity was high (96-98{\%}) for both the diary and event marker, for both weeks, and for both waking and sleeping times. The positive predictive value was low (34-52{\%}), and negative predictive value was high (94-97{\%}). This indicates that, rather than overreporting hot flushes when they did not exist, women tended to underreport hot flushes when they did exist. CONCLUSION: Use of prospective paper hot flush diaries and electronic event markers may seriously underestimate hot flush frequency and result in missed intensity and bother ratings.",
author = "Janet Carpenter and Patrick Monahan and Faouzi Azzouz",
year = "2004",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1097/01.AOG.0000143891.79482.ee",
language = "English",
volume = "104",
pages = "1322--1326",
journal = "Obstetrics and Gynecology",
issn = "0029-7844",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy of subjective hot flush reports compared with continuous sternal skin conductance monitoring

AU - Carpenter, Janet

AU - Monahan, Patrick

AU - Azzouz, Faouzi

PY - 2004/12

Y1 - 2004/12

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 subjective and 1 objective method for assessing hot flush frequency: prospective paper hot flush diaries, prospective electronic event markers, and the Biolog ambulatory sternal skin conductance monitor. METHODS: Fifty-five breast cancer survivors provided two 24-hour periods of data, 1 week apart, at baseline before being randomized for an intervention study. Women completed a prospective paper hot flush diary and pressed an event marker to subjectively record each hot flush they experienced while wearing a sternal skin conductance monitor. RESULTS: Sensitivity was uniformly low (< 50%) for both subjective methods at each week. The estimated probability that a woman would record a true monitor-verified hot flush subjectively by diary or event marker was between 36% and 50% of the time if she was awake and between 22% and 42% of the time if she was asleep. Underreporting of diary hot flushes consequently resulted in more than 50% missing severity and bother ratings. Specificity was high (96-98%) for both the diary and event marker, for both weeks, and for both waking and sleeping times. The positive predictive value was low (34-52%), and negative predictive value was high (94-97%). This indicates that, rather than overreporting hot flushes when they did not exist, women tended to underreport hot flushes when they did exist. CONCLUSION: Use of prospective paper hot flush diaries and electronic event markers may seriously underestimate hot flush frequency and result in missed intensity and bother ratings.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 subjective and 1 objective method for assessing hot flush frequency: prospective paper hot flush diaries, prospective electronic event markers, and the Biolog ambulatory sternal skin conductance monitor. METHODS: Fifty-five breast cancer survivors provided two 24-hour periods of data, 1 week apart, at baseline before being randomized for an intervention study. Women completed a prospective paper hot flush diary and pressed an event marker to subjectively record each hot flush they experienced while wearing a sternal skin conductance monitor. RESULTS: Sensitivity was uniformly low (< 50%) for both subjective methods at each week. The estimated probability that a woman would record a true monitor-verified hot flush subjectively by diary or event marker was between 36% and 50% of the time if she was awake and between 22% and 42% of the time if she was asleep. Underreporting of diary hot flushes consequently resulted in more than 50% missing severity and bother ratings. Specificity was high (96-98%) for both the diary and event marker, for both weeks, and for both waking and sleeping times. The positive predictive value was low (34-52%), and negative predictive value was high (94-97%). This indicates that, rather than overreporting hot flushes when they did not exist, women tended to underreport hot flushes when they did exist. CONCLUSION: Use of prospective paper hot flush diaries and electronic event markers may seriously underestimate hot flush frequency and result in missed intensity and bother ratings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=16244371010&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=16244371010&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.AOG.0000143891.79482.ee

DO - 10.1097/01.AOG.0000143891.79482.ee

M3 - Article

C2 - 15572497

AN - SCOPUS:16244371010

VL - 104

SP - 1322

EP - 1326

JO - Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - Obstetrics and Gynecology

SN - 0029-7844

IS - 6

ER -