Literature DB >> 11948471

Completeness and accuracy of registration of ovarian cancer in the cancer registry of Norway.

Solveig Tingulstad1, Tore Halvorsen, Jarle Norstein, Bjørn Hagen, Finn Egil Skjeldestad.   

Abstract

Completeness of reporting and accuracy of the diagnosis of ovarian cancer from one health region in Norway to the Cancer Registry were examined. Data kept by the Cancer Registry were evaluated against discharge diagnosis data from all 8 hospitals in the health region during the period of 1987-1996. The assessment of the accuracy of the diagnosis recorded in the Cancer Registry was based on review of all medical records in the hospital setting and on slide review of all histologic diagnoses. The overall completeness of reporting ovarian cancer to the Cancer Registry was 99.6%. The organ specific completeness of registration of histologic verified ovarian cancer within the Cancer Registry was 95.3%; 0.9% was erroneously coded and 3.5% had their diagnosis changed to ovarian cancer at re-evaluation. Of all ovarian cancer cases registered at the Cancer Registry, 91% had a primary histologic diagnosis. Among 591 cases identified with a histologic diagnosis in the Cancer Registry, the accuracy of the diagnosis was estimated at 92%. Coding errors were found in 2% of these cases, while in 6% of the cases it was not possible to reproduce the original diagnosis of ovarian cancer at re-evaluation. In order to provide data of high quality for cancer surveillance a cancer registry needs several data providers, such as histopathologic laboratory reports and clinical reports. In addition, assessment of reported data through stringent quality assurance procedures within the registry are necessary for reaching a nearly 100% completeness of registration as found for ovarian cancer in the Cancer Registry of Norway. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11948471     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.10254

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  11 in total

1.  Tumor registry versus physician medical record review: a direct comparison of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

Authors:  Elisabet E Manasanch; Jillian K Smith; Andreea Bodnari; Jeannine McKinney; Catherine Gray; Theodore P McDade; Jennifer F Tseng
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.840

2.  Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Berta Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Steinar Thoresen; Per Skaane
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Long-term effectiveness of endoscopic screening on incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer: A randomized trial.

Authors:  Espen Thiis-Evensen; Mette Kalager; Michael Bretthauer; Geir Hoff
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.623

4.  Prognosis in women with interval breast cancer: population based observational cohort study.

Authors:  Mette Kalager; Rulla M Tamimi; Michael Bretthauer; Hans-Olov Adami
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-11-16

5.  Quality assessment of the registration of vulvar and vaginal premalignant lesions at the Cancer Registry of Norway.

Authors:  Espen Enerly; Freddie Bray; Christine Mellem; Bo Terning Hansen; Grete Kjølberg; Tove Dahl; Tom Børge Johannesen; Mari Nygård
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2011-11-02       Impact factor: 4.089

6.  Time-trends on incidence and survival in a nationwide and unselected cohort of patients with skeletal osteosarcoma.

Authors:  Kjetil Berner; Tom Børge Johannesen; Aasmund Berner; Hans Kristian Haugland; Bodil Bjerkehagen; Per J Bøhler; Øyvind S Bruland
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 4.089

7.  Data coverage of a cancer registry in southern Iran before and after implementation of a population-based reporting system: a 10-year trend study.

Authors:  Kamran Bagheri Lankarani; Zahra Khosravizadegan; Abbas Rezaianzadeh; Behnam Honarvar; Mohsen Moghadami; Hossein Faramarzi; Mojtaba Mahmoodi; Mahin Farahmand; Seyed Masoom Masoompour; Bahman Nazemzadegan
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Quantifying data quality for clinical trials using electronic data capture.

Authors:  Meredith L Nahm; Carl F Pieper; Maureen M Cunningham
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-08-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  BRCA1 mutations in ovarian cancer and borderline tumours in Norway: a nested case-control study.

Authors:  T Bjørge; A K Lie; E Hovig; R E Gislefoss; S Hansen; E Jellum; H Langseth; K Nustad; C G Tropé; A Dørum
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  The incidence of renal cancer in Polish National Cancer Registry: is there any epidemiological data we can rely on?

Authors:  Piotr Zygmunt Wojcieszak; Sławomir Poletajew; Daniel Rutkowski; Piotr Radziszewski
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2014-08-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.