Teras et al. (1) report on weight loss and risk of breast cancer using data from 10 prospective studies, eight of which used self-reported weight data. Teras et al. note a high correlation coefficient between self-reported and measured weight. However, a high correlation coefficient is not an indicator of good agreement between two methods of ascertainment. In Bland and Altman’s 1986 article (2) about assessing agreement between two methods, they note that “data which seem to be in poor agreement can produce quite high correlations” and provide an example with a correlation of 0.94 and another with a correlation of 0.99. Bland and Altman raised the question “Why has a totally inappropriate method, the correlation coefficient, become almost universally used for this purpose?” Correlation is not an appropriate approach for assessing the comparability between methods (3). Teras et al. cite an article by Lawlor et al. (4) regarding comparisons of self-reported and measured weight for women 60 years and older; despite a correlation of 0.98, the Lawlor et al. article concluded that “self-report of weight should not be relied upon in prospective epidemiological studies or clinical practice when accuracy at the level of the individual is required.”

中文翻译：

---

关于：≥50岁女性的持续减肥和罹患乳腺癌的风险：前瞻性数据的汇总分析。

Teras等。（1）使用来自10项前瞻性研究的数据报告体重减轻和患乳腺癌的风险，其中八项使用自我报告的体重数据。Teras等。请注意，自我报告的体重与实测体重之间的相关系数较高。但是，较高的相关系数并不表示两种确定方法之间是否具有良好的一致性。在Bland和Altman于1986年发表的关于评估两种方法之间一致性的文章（2）中，他们指出“似乎不一致的数据可能会产生很高的相关性”，并提供了一个相关系数为0.94的示例和另一个相关系数为0.99的示例。 。布兰德（Bland）和奥特曼（Altman）提出了一个问题：“为什么有一种完全不合适的方法，相关系数，变得几乎普遍用于此目的？” 相关性不是评估方法之间可比性的适当方法（3）。Teras等。引用Lawlor等人的文章。（4）关于60岁及以上女性自我报告体重和测量体重的比较；尽管相关系数为0.98，但Lawlor等人。文章得出结论，“当需要个体水平的准确性时，在前瞻性流行病学研究或临床实践中不应依靠体重的自我报告。”