ArticleEcancermedicalscience2024
Quality assessment of a rural population-based cancer registry (PBCR) at Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, India for the years 2017-18.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overall survival of oral cancer from the population-based cancer registries of the Konkan area, Maharashtra, India.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Long-term overall survival of testicular cancer: findings from a rural population-based cancer registry, Ratnagiri district, Maharashtra state, India.Ecancermedicalscience · 2026Article
- Completeness Evaluation of Adult-Population-Based Cancer Registries: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Cancer burden, its pattern and survival in Muzaffarpur: findings from first population-based cancer registry of Bihar state, India.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cancer registries are valuable resources for cancer control and research. To justify their purpose, their data should be of satisfactory quality by being comparable internationally, complete in their coverage, valid in their values and timely in reporting. This study aimed to assess the quality of the Ratnagiri Population Based Cancer Registry's data for the years 2017-18 across the four dimensions of data quality. Methods: Regarding comparability, the registry procedure was reviewed vis-à-vis the rules they follow for cancer registry operation. We have used four methods for validity: re-abstraction and re-coding, diagnostic criteria methods- like the percentage of microscopically verified (MV%) and of death certificate only (DCO%) cases, missing information like proportion of cases of primary site unknown (PSU%) and internal validity. Semi-quantitative methods were employed for assessing completeness. Timeliness for all years of registry functioning was assessed qualitatively. Results: The overall accuracy rate of the registry was found to be 91.1% (94.7% for demographic and 88% for tumour details). Mortality to incidence ratios were found to be 0.50 for females and 0.59 for males. MV% was found to be 90.8% for males and 91.5% for females. The average number of sources per case was found to be 1.5. DCO% was found to be 2.7%. PSU% was 7.4%. Conclusion: We have positive results regarding the data's validity and comparability, but there is scope for improvement concerning completeness. Continuous training of the registry personnel and monitoring of the registry is recommended.
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.