Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The validity of reported ocular disease was investigated in a population-based epidemiologic study of persons aged 43-86 years residing in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. In a telephone survey conducted from September 1987 through May 1988, histories of cataract and age-related macular degeneration were obtained from the subject for 2,155 cases and from a surrogate for 1,433 cases. Within 2 years, these persons underwent a complete ocular examination. At that time, an "in-person" self-reported history of eye disease was obtained and disease presence was determined based on ocular photographs. The reporting methods, telephone versus in-person and surrogate versus subject, were compared and the validity of each assessed. Reporting methods were in agreement in better than 90% of all cases. Reporting of cataract showed a sensitivity of 20.4 for surrogate by telephone, 30.2 for self-report by telephone, and 37.8 for self-report at the examination. Sensitivity of reported age-related macular degeneration was poorer, with the highest rate of 17.9 for the "in-person" self-report. Specificity was better than 90.0 for all reporting methods for both cataract and age-related macular degeneration. These data suggest that estimates of prevalence of ocular disease should not be based solely on reported histories, and that clinical determinations are necessary.
Linton et al. (Sun,) studied this question.