Cited by 61Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningMedical Coding and Health InformationSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Quality of cancer registry birthplace data for Hispanics living in the United States

Gomez, Scarlett L., Glaser, Sally L.·2005·Cancer Causes & Control

Abstract

Patient birthplace from the SEER population-based cancer registries is potentially useful for identifying disparities in cancer occurrence and for studying cancer etiology. However, for Hispanics, completeness and accuracy of registry birthplace is unknown. By comparing registry birthplace to self-reported birthplace from 13 interview studies, we determined the completeness and accuracy of this variable and the associations of these measures with patient and hospital characteristics in the Greater Bay Area. Registry birthplace was unrecorded for 46% of 1277 Hispanic cancer cases, and unrecorded birthplace (i.e., incompleteness) was associated with younger age, higher education, English language preference, US birthplace, and admission at certain hospitals. For 691 Hispanics with available registry birthplace, sensitivity and positive predictive value compared to self-report (i.e., accuracy) were 96.3 and 97.3 among foreign-born, and 96.8 and 95.6 among US-born. US-born Hispanics misclassified in the registry as foreign-born were more likely to have unavailable education information, be deceased, prefer a language besides English, and be diagnosed at a smaller hospital or before 1996. Among self-reported foreign-born Hispanics, those misclassified as US-born were less likely to have been diagnosed at an HMO. Although the completeness and accuracy of birthplace information may vary across registries, this variable appears to be limited for analyses involving Hispanics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10552-005-0694-7

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ten of these (66%) identified that the incomplete data led to validity issues, most commonly that these data were not missing at random and had the potential to introduce bias.

    “Ten of these (66%) identified that the incomplete data led to validity issues, most commonly that these data were not missing at random and had the potential to introduced bias.12,34,43–50”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gomez, S. L., & Glaser, S. L.
Affiliations
Cancer Prevention Institute of California (US)
Corresponding author
Gomez, Scarlett L.
Venue
Cancer Causes & Control
Published
2005-08
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
713-723
ISSN
  • 0957-5243 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7225
OpenAlex
W1980178424
Cited by
61
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cancer Causes & Control (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • National Institutes of Health (n01cn065107-001)
  • National Cancer Institute (N01-CN-65107)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
SEER, data completeness, data accuracy, cancer disparities, hospital characteristics, cancer etiology, Greater Bay Area
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Emigration and Immigration, Female, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Registries, Residence Characteristics, Odds Ratio, SEER Program

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review