Cited by 848Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningMedical Coding and Health InformationSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: An overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness

Larsen, Inger Kristin, Småstuen, Milada, Johannesen, Tom Børge, Langmark, Frøydis, Parkin, Donald Maxwell, Bray, Freddie, Møller, Bjørn·2009·European Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Aim To provide a comprehensive evaluation of the quality of the data collected on both solid and non-solid tumours at the Cancer Registry of Norway (CRN). Methods Established quantitative and semi-quantitative methods were used to assess comparability, completeness, accuracy and timeliness of data for the period 1953-2005, with special attention to the registration period 2001-2005. Results The CRN coding and classification system by and large follows international standards, with some further subdivisions of morphology groupings performed in-house. The overall completeness was estimated at 98.8% for the registration period 2001-2005. There remains a variable degree of under-reporting particularly for haematological malignancies (C90-95) and tumours of the central nervous system (C70-72). For the same period, 93.8% of the cases were morphologically verified (site-specific range: 60.0-99.8%). The under-reporting in 2005 due to timely publication is estimated at 2.2% overall, based on the number of cases received at the registry during the following year. Conclusion This review suggests the routines in place at the CRN yields comparable data that can be considered reasonably accurate, close-to-complete and timely, thereby justifying our policy of the reporting of annual incidence one year after the year of diagnosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.037

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The Cancer Registry of Norway has an estimated completeness of 99.2% for lung cancer.

    “The quality, comparability, completeness, validity, and timeliness of the data in the CRN have been evaluated to be high, with an estimated completeness of 99.2% for lung cancer [14, 15].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Larsen, I. K., Småstuen, M., Johannesen, T. B., Langmark, F., Parkin, D. M., Bray, F., & Møller, B.
Affiliations
  • Cancer Registry of Norway (NO)
  • Cancer Research UK (GB)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Larsen, Inger Kristin
Venue
European Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-05
Volume
45
Issue
7
Pages
1218-1231
ISSN
0959-8049 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088138591
Cited by
848
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 52
FWCI
13.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
cancer registry data quality, Cancer Registry of Norway, data completeness, underreporting, data validity, timeliness, comparability, hematologic malignancies, central nervous system tumors
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Norway, Pathology, Clinical, Registries, Research Design, Young Adult

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