BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the quality of national data generated by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP); to assess variables collected through the program that are appropriate to use for program management, evaluation, and data analysis; and to identify potential data-quality issues. METHODS: Information was abstracted randomly from 5603 medical records selected from 6 NBCCEDP-funded state programs, and 76 categorical variables and 11 text-based breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic variables were collected. Concordance was estimated between abstracted data and the data collected by the NBCCEDP. Overall and outcome-specific concordance was calculated for each of the key variables. Four screening performance measures also were estimated by comparing the program data with the abstracted data. RESULTS: Basic measures of program outcomes, such as the percentage of women with cancer or with abnormal screening tests, had a high concordance rate. Variables with poor or inconsistent concordance included reported breast symptoms, receipt of fine-needle aspiration, and receipt of colposcopy with biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: The overall conclusion from this comprehensive validation project of the NBCCEDP is that, with few exceptions, the data collected from individual program sites and reported to the CDC are valid and consistent with sociodemographic and clinical data within medical records.
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the quality of national data generated by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP); to assess variables collected through the program that are appropriate to use for program management, evaluation, and data analysis; and to identify potential data-quality issues. METHODS: Information was abstracted randomly from 5603 medical records selected from 6 NBCCEDP-funded state programs, and 76 categorical variables and 11 text-based breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic variables were collected. Concordance was estimated between abstracted data and the data collected by the NBCCEDP. Overall and outcome-specific concordance was calculated for each of the key variables. Four screening performance measures also were estimated by comparing the program data with the abstracted data. RESULTS: Basic measures of program outcomes, such as the percentage of women with cancer or with abnormal screening tests, had a high concordance rate. Variables with poor or inconsistent concordance included reported breast symptoms, receipt of fine-needle aspiration, and receipt of colposcopy with biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: The overall conclusion from this comprehensive validation project of the NBCCEDP is that, with few exceptions, the data collected from individual program sites and reported to the CDC are valid and consistent with sociodemographic and clinical data within medical records.
Authors: Christie R Eheman; Vicki B Benard; Donald Blackman; Herschel W Lawson; Christa Anderson; William Helsel; Nancy C Lee Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Vicki B Benard; William Howe; Mona Saraiya; William Helsel; Herschel W Lawson Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Vicki B Benard; Herschel W Lawson; Christie R Eheman; Christa Anderson; William Helsel Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Florence K L Tangka; Joseph Dalaker; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; James G Gardner; Janet Royalty; Ingrid J E Hall; Amy DeGroff; Donald K Blackman; Ralph J Coates Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Diane Solomon; Diane Davey; Robert Kurman; Ann Moriarty; Dennis O'Connor; Marianne Prey; Stephen Raab; Mark Sherman; David Wilbur; Thomas Wright; Nancy Young Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-04-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lisa C Richardson; Janet Royalty; William Howe; William Helsel; William Kammerer; Vicki B Benard Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-10-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Donatus U Ekwueme; Ingrid J Hall; Lisa C Richardson; James G Gardner; Janet Royalty; Trevor D Thompson Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Vicki B Benard; Christie R Eheman; Herschel W Lawson; Donald K Blackman; Christa Anderson; William Helsel; Sandra F Thames; Nancy C Lee Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Virginia Senkomago; Janet Royalty; Jacqueline W Miller; Lee E Buenconsejo-Lum; Vicki B Benard; Mona Saraiya Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Mira L Katz; Paul L Reiter; Gregory S Young; Michael L Pennell; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Linda S Cook; Claire R Pestak; Andy Cy Leung; Helen Steed; Jill Nation; Kenneth Swenerton; Richard Gallagher; Anthony Magliocco; Martin Köbel; Angela Brooks-Wilson; Nhu Le Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 7.640