A previous study looked at the birth weights of younger women (aged 27 to 44 years) (n -220, 0.2% of the population studied) (14). The authors found a spearman correlation coefficient of r-0.74 and concluded that this is a good match between self-reported birth weight and initial birth records. However, the correlation between methods is only the first step in determining whether there is a match between two measurement methods (23, 26). The correlation provides a measure of the strength of a relationship between the variables, while a perfect match appears only when all points are on the tie line (23). The current interest is to clarify the mechanisms underlying the link between birth weight and subsequent disease. Imprecise self-reporting of birth weight, as found in our study, can lead to false relationships or overshadow important outcomes. It is clear that the ideal situation would be for all studies in this area to be based on original birth records. In most countries, this is simply not possible, at least with birth data that have been long enough for the effects to be studied later in adulthood. If the alternative is to use a form of self-reporting, the validity of these methods must be carefully verified. Correlation coefficients alone do not provide a valid argument.
A diagram of the difference from the average of the reported and original birth data will provide a visual guide for interpreting the relationship. Even with a relatively high correlation coefficient, as seen in this study as in previous studies (14, 15), we found that among women aged 44 to 60, there was a mismatch between methods. We conclude that even the birth data of reported middle-aged women would not sufficiently replace birth weights from the original birth data. In conclusion, there is a mismatch between objectively identified comorbidities and comorbidities. Objective testing seems necessary because comorbidities are highly undervalued in patients with COPD. Conversely, doctors should actively look for signs and symptoms of comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease and affective disorders. Treatment effects (for example. B in the case of dyslipidemia, high blood pressure and diabetes mellitus) and the limitations of assessment methods should be considered for research on the basis of objective tests and require additional diagnosis by card. The percentage of consent to the occurrence of SA between self-reporting and registration was greater than 85% for the three recall periods. Patients overestimated the duration of their SA by 2.4 weeks (95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.7) weeks for the 3-month recall period.
Agreement limits at 95% were generally broad and ranged from 12.5 to 17.3 weeks for the three-month recall period and between 38.8 and 37.2 weeks for the 12-month period. For 3-, 6- and 12-month recalls, 48.1%, 29.8% and 27.3% of patients reported a different sa duration than in the registry at ≤1 weeks. This letter applies to a service that you gave the go-ahead to before October 1, 2015. If you gave the go-ahead on October 1, 2015, in our letter, you complain about a bad job with a merchant. This study has several constraints. Current results should not be extrapolated to COPD patients with mild air congestion. The evaluation of pharmacological therapy in graphic diseases is arbitrary. Possible selection biases may be due to the exclusion of patients who are not eligible for pulmonary rehabilitation. Nevertheless, it has previously been shown that Charlson`s comorbidity index in the CIRO comorbidity study is comparable to that of other published cohorts .