ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2022
Setting the record straight-Correcting uterine cancer incidence and mortality in the Nordic countries by reallocation of unspecified cases.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Setting the record straight-Correcting uterine cancer incidence and mortality in the Nordic countries by reallocation of unspecified cases.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe incidence of and mortality from cancers of the cervix uteri and corpus uteri are underestimated if the presence of uterine cancers, where the exact topography (site of origin) is not specified, is omitted. In this paper we present the corrected figures on mortality from and incidence of cervix and corpus uteri cancers in the Nordic countries by reallocating unspecified uterine cancer deaths and cases to originate either from the corpus uteri or cervix uteri. To further validate the accuracy of reallocation, we also analyzed how well the reallocation captures the changes occurring as the result of a transition in cause of death coding in Norway that took place in 2005. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis study uses data available in the NORDCAN database, which contains aggregated cancer data from all the Nordic countries for the years 1960-2016. The unspecified uterine cancer cases and deaths were reallocated to either cervix uteri or corpus uteri based on the estimated probability that follows the distribution of cases and deaths with verified topography. The estimated proportions of cases and deaths for both cancers were calculated for each combination of age group, year, and country as a proportion of cases (and deaths, respectively) with known topography. Annual age-standardized rates were calculated by direct age-adjustment.
resultsThe proportions of unspecified uterine cancers were higher in the mortality data than in incidence data, with mean values for 1960-2016 ranging between 5.1% and 26.6% and between 0.2% and 6.8% by country, respectively. In the Nordic countries combined, the reallocation increased the number of cases by 4% and deaths by approximately 20% for both cancers. Finland was the only Nordic country where the mortality rate did not increase substantially after reallocation.
conclusionsThe reallocation procedure had a significant impact on mortality from cancers of the cervix and corpus uteri for countries where the proportion of cancer deaths coded as uterus, not otherwise specified, is substantial. More effort to validate cause of death data with incidence data from cancer registries is warranted to avoid erroneous conclusions of temporal trends based on uncorrected cancer burden.
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.