Data quality at the Cancer Registry of Norway: An overview of comparability, completeness, validity and timeliness
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Distribution and characteristics of malignant tumours by lung lobe (2024) · cites this paper as [14]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Night work and breast cancer risk among Norwegian nurses: assessment by different exposure metrics
Lie, J.-A. S., Kjuus, H., Zienolddiny, S., Haugen, A., Stevens, R. G., & Kjaerheim, K. (2011) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwr014 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Metabolic risk score and cancer risk: pooled analysis of seven cohorts
Stocks, T., Bjørge, T., Ulmer, H., Manjer, J., Häggström, C., Nagel, G., Engeland, A., Johansen, D., Hallmans, G., Selmer, R., et al. (2015) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyv001 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Distribution and characteristics of malignant tumours by lung lobe
Nilssen, Y., Brustugun, O. T., Fjellbirkeland, L., Helland, Å., Møller, B., Wahl, S. G. F., & Solberg, S. (2024) · BMC Pulmonary Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12890-024-02918-w · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“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].”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citation
- 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