Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29138196›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Cross-sectional study evaluating data quality of the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) prostate cancer registry data using the Cluster randomised trial of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP).

Samuel William David Merriel, Emma L Turner, Eleanor Walsh, Grace J Young, Chris Metcalfe, Luke Hounsome, Isobel Tudge, Jenny Donovan, Freddie Hamdy, David Neal and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Automated data collection in cancer care: State of play among registries in the United Kingdom and Europe.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

11 authors.

Samuel William David MerrielPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2919-9087
Emma L TurnerPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Eleanor WalshPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Grace J YoungPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Chris MetcalfePopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Luke HounsomePublic Health England National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, Bristol, UK.
Isobel TudgePublic Health England National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, Bristol, UK.
Jenny DonovanPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Freddie HamdyNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
David NealNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Richard M MartinPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15064Cancer Research UK 24432
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the completeness and agreement of prostate cancer data recorded by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) with research-level data specifically abstracted from medical records from the Cluster randomised triAl of prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for Prostate cancer (CAP) trial.

designCross-sectional comparison study.

participantsWe included 1356 men from the CAP trial cohort who were linked to the NCRAS registry. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Completeness of prostate cancer data in NCRAS and CAP and agreement for tumour, node, metastases (TNM) stage (T1/T2; T3; T4/N1/M1) and Gleason grade (4-6; 7; 8-10), measured by differences in proportions and Cohen's kappa statistic. Data were also stratified by year and pre-2010 versus post-2010, when NCRAS reporting standards changed.

resultsCompared with CAP, completeness was lower in NCRAS for Gleason grade (41.2% vs 76.7%, difference 35.5, 95% CI 32.1 to 39.0) and TNM stage (29.9% vs 67.6%, difference 37.6, 95% CI 34.1 to 41.1). NCRAS completeness for Gleason grade (pre-2010 vs post-2010 31.69% vs 64%; difference 32.31, 95% CI 26.76 to 37.87) and TNM stage (19.31% vs 55.50%; difference 36.19, 95% CI 30.72 to 41.67) improved over time. Agreement for Gleason grade was high (Cohen's kappa, κ=0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93), but lower for TNM stage (κ=0.41, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.51) overall. There was a trend towards improved agreement on Gleason grade, but not TNM stage, when comparing pre-2010 and post-2010 data.

conclusionNCRAS case identification was very high; however, data on prostate cancer grade was less complete than CAP, and agreement for TNM stage was modest. Although the completeness of NCRAS data has improved since 2010, the higher completeness rate in CAP demonstrates that gains could potentially be achieved in routine registry data. This study's findings highlight a need for improved recording of stage and grade data in the source medical records.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyAgedCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegistriesProstate-Specific Antigenepidemiologyprostate diseaseurological tumours

Identifiers

PMID29138196
PMCPMC5695381

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.