Comparing Surrogate and Self-Reported Melanoma Risk Factors
Author Information
Author(s): J.F. Aitken, A. Green, R. MacLennan, L. Jackman, N.G. Martin
Primary Institution: Queensland Institute of Medical Research
Hypothesis
How accurate are surrogate reports of melanoma risk factors compared to self-reports?
Conclusion
Surrogate reports of melanoma risk factors may be unreliable, especially for the number of moles.
Supporting Evidence
- Surrogate reports showed moderate agreement with self-reports for some melanoma risk factors.
- Probands with a family history of melanoma provided better surrogate information.
- Female probands were generally better at reporting than male probands.
Takeaway
When people report on their family's risk factors for melanoma, they often get it wrong, especially about moles.
Methodology
The study compared surrogate reports from melanoma cases about their relatives with self-reports from those relatives using questionnaires.
Potential Biases
Surrogate reports may understate the number of moles in families without a melanoma history.
Limitations
The study only included families of melanoma cases, which may not represent the general population.
Participant Demographics
Participants were melanoma cases diagnosed in Queensland, Australia, between 1982 and 1987.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.05
Confidence Interval
(0.52-0.58)
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website