Quality assessment of a rural population-based cancer registry (PBCR) at Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, India for the years 2017-18.

IF 1.2 Q4 ONCOLOGY ecancermedicalscience Pub Date : 2024-02-21 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2024.1672
Samyukta Shivshankar, Monika Sarade, Sandip Bhojane, Suvarna Kolekar, Suvarna Patil, Atul Budukh
{"title":"Quality assessment of a rural population-based cancer registry (PBCR) at Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, India for the years 2017-18.","authors":"Samyukta Shivshankar, Monika Sarade, Sandip Bhojane, Suvarna Kolekar, Suvarna Patil, Atul Budukh","doi":"10.3332/ecancer.2024.1672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cancer registries are valuable resources for cancer control and research. To justify their purpose, their data should be of satisfactory quality by being comparable internationally, complete in their coverage, valid in their values and timely in reporting. This study aimed to assess the quality of the Ratnagiri Population Based Cancer Registry's data for the years 2017-18 across the four dimensions of data quality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Regarding comparability, the registry procedure was reviewed vis-à-vis the rules they follow for cancer registry operation. We have used four methods for validity: re-abstraction and re-coding, diagnostic criteria methods- like the percentage of microscopically verified (MV%) and of death certificate only (DCO%) cases, missing information like proportion of cases of primary site unknown (PSU%) and internal validity. Semi-quantitative methods were employed for assessing completeness. Timeliness for all years of registry functioning was assessed qualitatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall accuracy rate of the registry was found to be 91.1% (94.7% for demographic and 88% for tumour details). Mortality to incidence ratios were found to be 0.50 for females and 0.59 for males. MV% was found to be 90.8% for males and 91.5% for females. The average number of sources per case was found to be 1.5. DCO% was found to be 2.7%. PSU% was 7.4%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We have positive results regarding the data's validity and comparability, but there is scope for improvement concerning completeness. Continuous training of the registry personnel and monitoring of the registry is recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":11460,"journal":{"name":"ecancermedicalscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10911674/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ecancermedicalscience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2024.1672","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cancer registries are valuable resources for cancer control and research. To justify their purpose, their data should be of satisfactory quality by being comparable internationally, complete in their coverage, valid in their values and timely in reporting. This study aimed to assess the quality of the Ratnagiri Population Based Cancer Registry's data for the years 2017-18 across the four dimensions of data quality.

Methods: Regarding comparability, the registry procedure was reviewed vis-à-vis the rules they follow for cancer registry operation. We have used four methods for validity: re-abstraction and re-coding, diagnostic criteria methods- like the percentage of microscopically verified (MV%) and of death certificate only (DCO%) cases, missing information like proportion of cases of primary site unknown (PSU%) and internal validity. Semi-quantitative methods were employed for assessing completeness. Timeliness for all years of registry functioning was assessed qualitatively.

Results: The overall accuracy rate of the registry was found to be 91.1% (94.7% for demographic and 88% for tumour details). Mortality to incidence ratios were found to be 0.50 for females and 0.59 for males. MV% was found to be 90.8% for males and 91.5% for females. The average number of sources per case was found to be 1.5. DCO% was found to be 2.7%. PSU% was 7.4%.

Conclusion: We have positive results regarding the data's validity and comparability, but there is scope for improvement concerning completeness. Continuous training of the registry personnel and monitoring of the registry is recommended.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2017-18 年印度马哈拉施特拉邦 Ratnagiri 农村人口癌症登记(PBCR)的质量评估。
背景:癌症登记是癌症控制和研究的宝贵资源。为了证明其目的,其数据应具有国际可比性、覆盖范围完整、数值有效、报告及时等令人满意的质量。本研究旨在从数据质量的四个维度评估 Ratnagiri 人口癌症登记处 2017-18 年的数据质量:关于可比性,我们根据癌症登记处的运作规则对登记处的程序进行了审查。我们采用了四种有效性方法:重新抽取和重新编码、诊断标准方法--如显微镜验证(MV%)和仅死亡证明(DCO%)病例的百分比、缺失信息(如原发部位不明病例的比例(PSU%))和内部有效性。评估完整性时采用了半定量方法。对登记册运行各年的及时性进行了定性评估:结果发现,登记册的总体准确率为 91.1%(人口统计学准确率为 94.7%,肿瘤详细信息准确率为 88%)。女性死亡率与发病率之比为 0.50,男性为 0.59。男性的死亡率为 90.8%,女性为 91.5%。每个病例的平均病源数为 1.5。DCO% 为 2.7%。结论:我们在数据的有效性和可比性方面取得了积极的成果,但在完整性方面仍有改进的余地。建议对登记人员进行持续培训,并对登记进行监控。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.60%
发文量
138
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis, sexually transmitted infections and their association with HPV infections in asymptomatic women attending antenatal care in Ethiopia. The regional cancer spectrum in Uganda: a population-based cancer survey by sub-regions (2017-2020). Can combined paravertebral and erector spinae block provide perioperative analgesia for mastectomy with LD flap reconstruction surgery? An observational study. Clinicopathological features associated with CD44 and CD63 expression in breast cancer. African colorectal cancer burden in 2022 and projections to 2050.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1