ArticleBritish journal of cancer2013
A comprehensive assessment of the impact of errors in the cancer registration process on 1- and 5-year relative survival estimates.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survival of cancer patients with pre-existing heart disease.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Pancreatic cancer survival by stage and age in seven high-income countries (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study.British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Five ways to improve international comparisons of cancer survival: lessons learned from ICBP SURVMARK-2.British journal of cancer · 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
- Prostate cancer survival in sub-Saharan Africa by age, stage at diagnosis, and human development index: a population-based registry study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2021Article
- Article
- Completeness of Cancer Case Ascertainment in International Cancer Registries: Exploring the Issue of Gender Disparities.Frontiers in oncology · 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
- Article
- Critical Points for Interpreting Patients' Survival Rate Using Cancer Registries: A Literature Review.Journal of epidemiology · 2018Review
- Article
- Burden of gastrointestinal cancers and problem of the incomplete information; how to make up the data?Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2016Review
- Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009: analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2).Lancet (London, England) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhen making international comparisons of cancer survival, it is essential reported differences are real effects and not an artefact of potential errors in cancer registration.
methodsWe use simulation methods to assess the impact of various cancer registration errors on commonly reported outcomes of cancer survival (1-, and 5-year relative survival estimates). We draw two samples of patients diagnosed with cancer from one population and introduce potential registration errors in one of the sample populations under various assumptions. We investigate the effect of errors individually as well as the composite effect when combined with other registration errors.
resultsThe results indicate that high levels of cancer registration errors are necessary to make a noticeable effect on commonly reported metrics of cancer survival. Differences of up to 3 percentage units in the 5-year relative survival proportion are seen under plausible scenarios.
conclusionThis study is a comprehensive assessment of cancer registration errors and the consequent impact on commonly reported survival statistics. We show that under plausible scenarios, it is very unlikely that these biases are large enough to explain the variation in international comparisons of cancer survival. Registration errors will also impact on other metrics reported from registry data, such as incidence.
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.