Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37777857›Full record

GuidelineAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2023

REPCAN: Guideline for REporting Population-based CANcer Registry Data.

Gholamreza Roshandel, Farhana Badar, Anton Barchuk, David M Roder, Suleeporn Sangrajrang, Les Mery, Hamajima Nobuyuki, Aram Halimi, Prashant Mathur, Gambhir Shrestha and 1 more

Abstract readReviewPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Real-world data and evidence: pioneering frontiers in precision oncology.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. ChecKAP: A Checklist for Reporting a Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) Study.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024
    Article
  7. 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.

Gholamreza RoshandelGolestan Research Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.
Farhana BadarCancer Registry and Clinical Data Management unit, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan.
Anton BarchukPetrov Research Institute of Oncology, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.
David M RoderCancer Epidemiology and Population Health, Beat Cancer Project, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Suleeporn SangrajrangResearch Division, Health System Development, National Cancer Institute, Bangkok, Thailand.
Les MerySection of Cancer Information, the Global Initiative on Cancer Registry (GICR), the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Hamajima NobuyukiDepartment of Healthcare Administration, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
Aram HalimiDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Prashant MathurNational Centre for Disease Informatics and Research (NCDIR), Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirmal Bhawan ICMR Complex (II Floor), Poojanahalli, Kannamangala Post, Bangalore 562 110, India.
Gambhir ShresthaDepartment of Community Medicine, Maharajgunj Medical Campus, Institute of Medicine, Tribhuvan University, Maharajgunj, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Alireza Mosavi JarrahiDepartment of Health, Medical School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to develop a guideline on how to report result of a population-based cancer registry. Methods: The guideline's development involved a core working committee and a scientific committee comprising experts from diverse domains. The process comprised three steps: 1) a comprehensive review of existing tools and guidelines and the development of the initial draft of the guideline based on a review of literature, 2) refinement items through several rounds of focus group discussion among the core group, and development initial draft, and 3) Evaluation of the initial draft by scientific committee members. Items in the guideline were organized to accommodate reports of population-based cancer registries as a scientific manuscript. Results: The core committee developed 47 items distributed in the major heading of a scientific manuscript presented as a checklist. The evaluation of the scientific committee led to a consensus on the majority of the items included in the checklist. Among 10 committee members, 7 provided unreserved approval, validating each item's necessity, applicability, and comprehensibility in the checklist. Feedback from the remaining 3 members was carefully analyzed and integrated to enhance the guideline's robustness. Incorporating feedback, a first final draft was presented in a meeting of scientific and core working committee members. Collaborative discussion ensured clarity of expression for each items and a final checklist was developed. Conclusion: The guideline abbreviated as REPCAN offers a standardized framework for reporting population-based cancer registry, fostering transparency, comparability, and comprehensive data presentation. The guideline encourages flexibility while promoting comprehensive and robust reporting practices.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsRoutinely Collected Health DataChecklistHumansResearch DesignResearch Reportbased cancer registrycancer registryGuidelineinformation distributionmedical writingpopulation

Identifiers

PMID37777857
PMCPMC10762751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.