Case-control differences in the reliability of reporting a history of induced abortion

22Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The authors investigated the possibility that, in interview-based case- control studies, controls are more likely than cases to underreport a history of induced abortion. A case-control study was conducted in White women under 45 years of age who had given birth in Washington State during 1984-1994. The cases were women in three metropolitan counties of Washington State diagnosed with invasive breast cancer during 1984-1994; controls were selected through random digit dialing. A history of induced abortion among study participants was compared between interview data and information collected on the birth record of the last child to whom they gave birth (225 cases, 303 controls). Among women with a prior induced abortion recorded on the birth record, 14.0% of the 43 cases and 14.9% of the 47 controls did not report an induced abortion at interview (difference = -0.9%, 95% confidence interval of the difference: -15, 14). The authors' data do not suggest that controls are more reluctant to report a history of induced abortion than are women with breast cancer.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tang, M. T. C., Weiss, N. S., Daling, J. R., & Malone, K. E. (2000). Case-control differences in the reliability of reporting a history of induced abortion. American Journal of Epidemiology, 151(12), 1139–1143. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010163

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free