ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011
Evidence against the proposition that "UK cancer survival statistics are misleading": simulation study with National Cancer Registry data.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- General practitioners' clinical decision-making in patients that could have cancer: a vignette study comparing the Baltic states with four Nordic countries.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Survival of cancer patients with pre-existing heart disease.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Five ways to improve international comparisons of cancer survival: lessons learned from ICBP SURVMARK-2.British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Primary Care System Factors and Clinical Decision-making in Patients that Could Have Lung Cancer: a Vignette Study in Five Balkan Region Countries.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2022Article
- Impact of the Management and Proportion of Lost to Follow-Up Cases on Cancer Survival Estimates for Small Population-Based Cancer Registries.Journal of cancer epidemiology · 2022Article
- Primary care practitioners' diagnostic action when the patient may have cancer: an exploratory vignette study in 20 European countries.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Data Resource Profile: National Cancer Registration Dataset in England.International journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
- A novel CpG-based signature for survival prediction of lung adenocarcinoma patients.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Progress in cancer survival, mortality, and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995-2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study.The Lancet. Oncology · 2019Article
- How European primary care practitioners think the timeliness of cancer diagnosis can be improved: a thematic analysis.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Article
- How health system factors affect primary care practitioners' decisions to refer patients for further investigation: protocol for a pan-European ecological study.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Article
- Critical Points for Interpreting Patients' Survival Rate Using Cancer Registries: A Literature Review.Journal of epidemiology · 2018Review
- Twenty-gene-based prognostic model predicts lung adenocarcinoma survival.OncoTargets and therapy · 2018Article
- How the probability of presentation to a primary care clinician correlates with cancer survival rates: a European survey using vignettes.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2017Article
- Parameter Heterogeneity In Breast Cancer Cost Regressions - Evidence From Five European Countries.Health economics · 2015Article
- RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS IN BREAST CANCER TREATMENT: A HEALTH PRODUCTION APPROACH.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2015Review
- Concordance of National Cancer Registration with self-reported breast, bowel and lung cancer in England and Wales: a prospective cohort study within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening.British journal of cancer · 2013Article
- Management of colorectal cancer explains differences in 1-year relative survival between France and England for patients diagnosed 1997-2004.British journal of cancer · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo simulate each of two hypothesised errors in the National Cancer Registry (recording of the date of recurrence of cancer, instead of the date of diagnosis, for registrations initiated from a death certificate; long term survivors who are never notified to the registry), to estimate their possible effect on relative survival, and to establish whether lower survival in the UK might be due to one or both of these errors.
designSimulation study.
settingNational Cancer Registry of England and Wales. Population Patients diagnosed as having breast (women), lung, or colorectal cancer during 1995-2007 in England and Wales, with follow-up to 31 December 2007.
main outcome measureMean absolute percentage change in one year and five year relative survival associated with each simulated error.
resultsTo explain the differences in one year survival after breast cancer between England and Sweden, under the first hypothesis, date of diagnosis would have to have been incorrectly recorded by an average of more than a year for more than 70% of women known to be dead. Alternatively, under the second hypothesis, failure to register even 40% of long term survivors would explain less than half the difference in one year survival. Results were similar for lung and colorectal cancers.
conclusionsEven implausibly extreme levels of the hypothesised errors in the cancer registry data could not explain the international differences in survival observed between the UK and other European countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.