Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2012
Histological confirmation of breast cancer registration and self-reporting in England and Wales: a cohort study within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- 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
- Early detection of cancer in the general population: a blinded case-control study of p53 autoantibodies in colorectal cancer.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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn research studies, accurate information of cancer diagnosis is crucial. In women with breast cancer (BC), we compare cancer registration (CR) in England/Wales and self-reporting with independent confirmation.
methodsIn the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, notification of BC diagnosed between randomisation and 31 December 2009 was obtained through (1) CR (17 October 2011) and (2) self-reporting using postal-questionnaire. Breast cancer was confirmed using a detailed questionnaire (BC questionnaire BCQ) completed by the treating clinician (gold standard). Apparent sensitivity and positive-predictive value of CR/self-reporting vs BCQ were calculated.
resultsOf 1065 women with possible BC notification, diagnosis was confirmed in 932 (87.5%). A total of 3.1% (28 out of 918) of BC CR and 12.4% (128 out of 1032) of women with self-reported BC only had in-situ carcinoma on BCQ. Another 4.6% (43 out of 932) of BCQ-confirmed cancer did not have a BC registration, and 3.6% (34 out of 932) did not self-report BC. Apparent sensitivity of CR and self-reporting vs BCQ were 95.4 and 96.4%, respectively. Positive-predictive value of self-reporting (87.1%) was significantly lower than that of CR (96.8%). Women aged<65 were more likely to over report in-situ carcinoma as BC. Overall, 73 (6.8%) women would have been misclassified/missed if CR, and 167 (15.6%) if self-reporting data alone was used.
conclusionThis study confirms the reliability of BC registration in England/Wales and highlights the fact that 1 in 10 women self-reporting BC might only have in-situ breast carcinoma.
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.