ReviewCancers2025
Completeness Evaluation of Adult-Population-Based Cancer Registries: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Global burden of gastric cancer attributed to high-salt diets: spatiotemporal trends and socio-demographic inequalities from 1990 to 2021.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Population-based cancer registries are crucial for tracking cancer trends, supporting research, guiding policy decisions, and ensuring efficient healthcare resource allocation. However, their effectiveness relies heavily on data quality, specifically the completeness of the cancer registration process. BACKGROUND/
objectivesThis systematic review aims to identify the methods used by adult population-based cancer registries worldwide to assess the completeness of their data. It also considered the significant role of high-quality data in method selection and the significant challenges of data handling.
methodsA comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted across the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed for studies published from January 2004 to December 2024. The review was written according to PRISMA guidelines, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool.
resultsThe review identified 83 studies from 31 countries, the majority from Europe, especially Nordic and Central European countries. Most studies met high-quality standards, with only one study scoring below 75%. Common approaches include independent case ascertainment (the most used), a capture-recapture analysis, a death-certificate-only analysis, and comparisons with historical rates. While independent case ascertainment is valuable when high-quality auxiliary sources are available, its accuracy varies. Other methods, like capture-recapture or Mortality-to-Incidence ratios, may be more accurate or feasible in some cases.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that methods for completeness evaluations vary widely across registries, influenced by data quality and regional practices. The results emphasize the importance of the continuous refinement of these assessment methods to improve the reliability and global comparability of cancer registry data.
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.