ArticleBMC cancer2024
Validation of primary and outcome data quality in a Swedish population-based breast cancer quality registry.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. 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.
- Estimating the number of people living with metastatic breast cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study using linked health data.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPopulation-based cancer quality registries are of great importance for the improvement of cancer care. However, little is known about the quality of recurrence data in cancer quality registries. The aim of this study was to evaluate data quality in the regional Breast Cancer Quality Registry of Central Sweden, with emphasis on the validity of recorded information on recurrence.
methodsValidation by re-abstraction was performed on a random sample of 800 women with primary invasive breast cancer stage I-III diagnosed between 1993 and 2010, of which 400 had at least one registered recurrence and 400 had no registered recurrence. Registry data were compared with data from medical records. Exact agreement, correlation and kappa values, sensitivity and specificity were calculated.
resultsSeven hundred forty-seven women (93%) were available for analysis. Exact agreement was high for diagnostics, tumor characteristics, surgery, and adjuvant oncological treatment (90% or more for most variables). The registry's sensitivity was low for regional recurrence (47%), but higher for local and distant recurrence (80% and 75%), whereas specificity was overall high (≥ 95%). Combining all recurrence categories irrespective of localization improved sensitivity to 90% with a specificity of 91%. In 87% of women, the date of first recurrence according to medical records fell within ± 90 days of the date recorded in the registry.
conclusionsWhile the quality of data in the regional Breast Cancer Quality Registry was generally high, data accuracy on recurrences was lower. The overall precision of identifying any recurrence, irrespective of localization, was high. However, the accuracy of classification of recurrences (local, regional or distant) was lower, with evidence of underreporting for each of the recurrence categories. Given the importance of recurrence-related outcomes in the assessment of quality of care, efforts should be made to improve the reporting of recurrences.
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.