ArticleJournal of global oncology2018
Data Reliability and Coding Completeness of Cancer Registry Information Using Reabstracting Method in the National Cancer Institute: Thailand, 2012 to 2014.
Article in Journal of global oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Updated cholangiocarcinoma incidence trends and projections in Thailand by region based on data from four population-based cancer registries.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2025Article
- Symptom Severity and Treatment Needs Among Racial Groups Seeking Treatment at a Mood Outcomes Program.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2025Review
- Incidence ofTransplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2024Article
- Operational Feasibility of Hospital-Based Cancer Registries in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2023Review
- Prescription Rates for Antiplatelet Therapy (APT) in Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) - What Benchmark are We Aiming at in Continuing Medical Education (CME)?Journal of European CME · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeData quality is a core value of cancer registries, which bring about greater understanding of cancer distribution and determinants. Thailand established its cancer registry in 1986; however, studies focusing on data reliability have been limited. This study aimed to assess the coding completeness and reliability of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) hospital-based cancer registry, Thailand.
methodsThis study was conducted using the reabstracting method. We focused on seven cancer sites-the colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast, cervix, and prostate-registered between 2012 and 2014 in the NCI hospital-based cancer registry. Missing data were identified for coding completeness calculation among important variables. The agreement rate and κ coefficient were computed to represent data reliability.
resultsFor reabstracting, we retrieved 957 medical records from a total of 5,462. These were selected using the probability proportional to size method, stratified by topology, sex, and registered year. The overall coding completeness of the registered and reabstracted data was 89.9% and 93.6%, respectively. In addition, the overall agreement rate among variables ranged from 84.7% to 99.6%, and κ coefficient ranged from 0.619 to 0.995. The misclassification among unilateral organs caused lower coding completeness and agreement rate of laterality coding. The completeness of current residency could be improved using the reabstracting method. The lowest agreement rate was found among various categories of diagnosis basis. Sex misclassification for male breast cancer was identified.
conclusionThe coding completeness and data reliability of the NCI hospital-based cancer registry met the standard in most critical variables. However, some challenges remain to improve the data quality. The reabstracting method could identify the critical points affecting the quality of cancer registry data.
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.