Literature DB >> 18270798

A new method to evaluate the completeness of case ascertainment by a cancer registry.

Barnali Das1, Limin X Clegg, Eric J Feuer, Linda W Pickle.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic research into cancer and subsequent decision making to reduce the cancer burden in the population are dependent on the quality of available data. The more reliable the data, the more confident we can be that the decisions made would have the desired effect in the population. The North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) certifies population-based cancer registries, ensuring uniformity of data quality. An important assessment of registry quality is provided by the index of completeness of cancer case ascertainment. NAACCR currently computes this index assuming that the ratio of cancer incidence rates to cancer mortality rates is constant across geographic areas within cancer site, gender, and race groups. NAACCR does not incorporate the variability of this index into the certification process.
METHODS: We propose an improved method for calculating this index based on a statistical model developed at the National Cancer Institute to predict expected incidence using demographic and lifestyle data. We calculate the variance of our index using statistical approximation.
RESULTS: We use the incidence model to predict the number of new incident cases in each registry area, based on all available registry data. Then we adjust the registry-specific expected numbers for reporting delay and data corrections. The proposed completeness index is the ratio of the observed number to the adjusted prediction for each registry. We calculate the variance of the new index and propose a simple method of incorporating this variability into the certification process.
CONCLUSIONS: Better modeling reduces the number of registries with unrealistically high completeness indices. We provide a fuller picture of registry performance by incorporating variability into the certification process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18270798      PMCID: PMC2668648          DOI: 10.1007/s10552-008-9114-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Causes Control        ISSN: 0957-5243            Impact factor:   2.506


  5 in total

1.  A vision for cancer incidence surveillance in the United States.

Authors:  Holly L Howe; Brenda K Edwards; John L Young; Tiefu Shen; Dee W West; Mary Hutton; Catherine N Correa
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.506

2.  A new method of estimating United States and state-level cancer incidence counts for the current calendar year.

Authors:  Linda W Pickle; Yongping Hao; Ahmedin Jemal; Zhaohui Zou; Ram C Tiwari; Elizabeth Ward; Mark Hachey; Holly L Howe; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  A national framework for cancer surveillance in the United States.

Authors:  Phyllis A Wingo; Holly L Howe; Michael J Thun; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Elizabeth Ward; Martin L Brown; JoAnne Sylvester; Gilbert H Friedell; Linda Alley; Julia H Rowland; Brenda K Edwards
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.506

4.  Impact of reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence rates and trends.

Authors:  Limin X Clegg; Eric J Feuer; Douglas N Midthune; Michael P Fay; Benjamin F Hankey
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Cancer surveillance in the U.S.: can we have a national system?

Authors:  J Swan; P Wingo; R Clive; D West; D Miller; C Hutchison; E J Sondik; B K Edwards
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1998-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

  5 in total
  6 in total

1.  Estimating the completeness of physician billing claims for diabetes case ascertainment using population-based prescription drug data.

Authors:  L M Lix; J P Kuwornu; K Kroeker; G Kephart; K C Sikdar; M Smith; H Quan
Journal:  Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Risk of Malignant Ovarian Cancer Based on Ultrasonography Findings in a Large Unselected Population.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Liina Poder; Eric Johnson; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  How generalizable are the SEER registries to the cancer populations of the USA?

Authors:  Tzy-Mey Kuo; Lee R Mobley
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 2.506

4.  Risk of thyroid cancer based on thyroid ultrasound imaging characteristics: results of a population-based study.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Paulette Lebda; Vickie A Feldstein; Dorra Sellami; Ruth B Goldstein; Natasha Brasic; Chengshi Jin; John Kornak
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 21.873

5.  A prediction model to estimate completeness of electronic physician claims databases.

Authors:  Lisa M Lix; Xue Yao; George Kephart; Hude Quan; Mark Smith; John Paul Kuwornu; Nitharsana Manoharan; Wilfrid Kouokam; Khokan Sikdar
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-08-26       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Machine Learning Methods to Identify Missed Cases of Bladder Cancer in Population-Based Registries.

Authors:  Anne-Michelle Noone; Clara J K Lam; Angela B Smith; Matthew E Nielsen; Eric Boyd; Angela B Mariotto; Mousumi Banerjee
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2021-06
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.