Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Maudsley, G.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, E. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Maudsley, G.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, E. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 28, 809-815, Copyright © 1999 by International Epidemiological Association

ARTICLES

What lessons can be learned for cancer registration quality assurance from data users? Skin cancer as an example

G Maudsley and EM Williams
Public Health, Quadrangle, The University of Liverpool, UK.

BACKGROUND: In cancer registration, data cleaning (i.e. amendments made by data users to datasets released by registries) is potentially informative for quality assurance, but generally underreported. AIM: To assess the scope for learning lessons about cancer registration quality assurance from a data user (using skin cancer as the example). METHODS: The main design features were: (i) A descriptive study identifying, qualitatively and quantitatively, the breadth, depth, and impact of quality assurance issues raised by a user cleaning Merseyside and Cheshire Cancer Registry skin cancer data. Errors were rectified and pitfalls for interpretation were identified. (ii) A nested validation of morphology and site coding on random samples of cutaneous malignant melanomas, basal cell carcinomas (BCC), and squamous cell carcinomas. The 33132-record dataset comprised: all registered skin lesions, except metastases; most recorded variables (about patient, lesion, treatment, outcome); for Merseyside and Cheshire residents diagnosed 1970-1991. RESULTS: (i) Ineligible cases represented 0.3% (97/33132), and were detected best by morphology checks. Most quality assurance issues identified related to local custom and practice, staff training, and computerization, being particularly illustrated by problematic BCC registration practice (e.g. records written over unchallenged by range checks; and idiosyncratic use of variables). (ii) Post-cleaning, morphology coding errors were minimal in the random samples. CONCLUSION: There is great scope for data users to contribute to cancer registration quality assurance. Ultimately, the study dataset appeared fit for epidemiological analysis and important quality assurance messages emerged. Shared explicit standard guidelines for data preparation and validation are needed by users, whose insights could and should be better recognized by cancer registries.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
D. G. T. Arts, N. F. de Keizer, and G.-J. Scheffer
Defining and Improving Data Quality in Medical Registries: A Literature Review, Case Study, and Generic Framework
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., November 1, 2002; 9(6): 600 - 611.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.