4.5 Article

Reproducibility of Reported In Utero Exposure to Tobacco Smoke

期刊

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 48-52

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.10.008

关键词

Tobacco Smoking; Prenatal Exposure; Reproducibility

资金

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [N01-ES-85433]
  2. Norwegian Ministry of Health
  3. NIH/NINDS [1 UO1 NS 047537-01]
  4. Norwegian Research Council/FUGE [151918/S10]
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [N01ES085433, ZIAES044008] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [U01NS047537] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: In studies of the fetal origins of disease and life course epidemiology, measures of fetal exposure may be based on information reported by the adults who were exposed in utero. In particular, the full spectrum of consequences of in utero exposure to maternal tobacco smoking is now an area of active investigation, and the ability to report such exposure reproducibly is of interest. We evaluated the reproducibility of in utero exposure to tobacco smoke, reported by the adult daughter during consecutive pregnancies. METHODS: This study was based on 11,257 women who enrolled for more than one pregnancy in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa). Participants completed a questionnaire around 17 weeks of gestation, which asked about their in utero exposure to tobacco smoke. Kappa statistics were calculated. Determinants of agreement were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Weighted Kappa for in utero exposure for the first and second reports was 0.80. Determinants of agreement were higher education (better) and longer time between reports (worse). CONCLUSIONS: Information on in utero exposure to maternal tobacco smoking provided by adult women was highly reproducible in this population. Ann Epidemiol 2011;21:48-52. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据