Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21559016›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2011

Completeness of case ascertainment and survival time error in English cancer registries: impact on 1-year survival estimates.

H Møller, S Richards, N Hanchett, S P Riaz, M Lüchtenborg, L Holmberg, D Robinson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Hereditary Hemochromatosis Variant Associations with Incident Nonliver Malignancies: 11-Year Follow-up in UK Biobank.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Glucosamine Use and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: Results from UK Biobank.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

H MøllerKing's College London, Thames Cancer Registry, 42 Weston Street, London SE1 3QD, UK. henrik.moller@kcl.ac.uk
S Richards
N Hanchett
S P Riaz
M Lüchtenborg
L Holmberg
D Robinson

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been suggested that cancer registries in England are too dependent on processing of information from death certificates, and consequently that cancer survival statistics reported for England are systematically biased and too low.

methodsWe have linked routine cancer registration records for colorectal, lung, and breast cancer patients with information from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database for the period 2001-2007. Based on record linkage with the HES database, records missing in the cancer register were identified, and dates of diagnosis were revised. The effects of those revisions on the estimated survival time and proportion of patients surviving for 1 year or more were studied. Cases that were absent in the cancer register and present in the HES data with a relevant diagnosis code and a relevant surgery code were used to estimate (a) the completeness of the cancer register. Differences in survival times calculated from the two data sources were used to estimate (b) the possible extent of error in the recorded survival time in the cancer register. Finally, we combined (a) and (b) to estimate (c) the resulting differences in 1-year cumulative survival estimates.

resultsCompleteness of case ascertainment in English cancer registries is high, around 98-99%. Using HES data added 1.9%, 0.4% and 2.0% to the number of colorectal, lung, and breast cancer registrations, respectively. Around 5-6% of rapidly fatal cancer registrations had survival time extended by more than a month, and almost 3% of rapidly fatal breast cancer records were extended by more than a year. The resulting impact on estimates of 1-year survival was small, amounting to 1.0, 0.8, and 0.4 percentage points for colorectal, lung, and breast cancer, respectively.

interpretationEnglish cancer registration data cannot be dismissed as unfit for the purpose of cancer survival analysis. However, investigators should retain a critical attitude to data quality and sources of error in international cancer survival studies.

Indexed as

BiasDeath CertificatesData CollectionEnglandFollow-Up StudiesHumansNeoplasmsRegistriesSurvival RateSurvivorsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID21559016
PMCPMC3137398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.