ArticleMagyar onkologia2024
[The pitfalls of lung cancer coding practices based on the evaluation of the National Cancer Registry].
Article in Magyar onkologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The quality of input data determines the reliability of epidemiological assessments. Thus, the verification of cases reported to the National Cancer Registry is required. The objective of our study was evaluating the reliability of cases diagnosed by lung cancer, exploring the patterns of erroneous reports. The validation of the 11,750 lung cancer cases reported to the Cancer Registry in 2018 was performed with the involvement of the recording hospitals, analyzing the characteristics of reports by gender, age and attributes of the reporting institutions. 81.3 percent of the reported cases was confirmed, in 40.4 percent of the false reports, malignancy was not present at all. Among the erroneous cases women and the elderly age group were overrepresented. The highest deleted rate occurred in Borsod- Abaúj-Zemplén county. As a conclusion, there is a strong need for the improvement of the efficiency in encoding lung cancer. The most common errors: confusion of malignant-benign, cancerous-non-cancerous and primary-metastatic lesions. The reliability is not affected by the role of individual institutions in the hierarchy of health care. The availability of reliable epidemiological data is crucial in the fight against cancer, which requires broad professional cooperation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39013085PMC11870692What 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.