Cited by 60Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningMedical Coding and Health InformationSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Bias in completeness of birthplace data for Asian groups in a population-based cancer registry (United States)

Gomez, Scarlett L., Glaser, Sally L., Kelsey, Jennifer L., Lee, Marion M.·2004·Cancer Causes & Control

Abstract

Data on place of birth are routinely collected by population-based cancer registries in the United States and are used to study effects of immigration on cancer patterns in Asian migrants, who comprise about a quarter of the US immigrant population. However, the quality of this research, which has the potential for informing cancer etiology and control, is unclear because registry birthplace information is incomplete, and its accuracy has not been examined. We quantified misclassification of birthplace data for Asian cancer patients in the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry in northern California by comparing registry birthplace information with self-reported birthplace from interview, and then identified sociodemographic and hospital characteristics associated with birthplace completeness and misclassification. Of the 1836 eligible Asian patients, 649 (35%) had unrecorded registry birthplace. For all except Vietnamese, these persons were less likely than those with recorded birthplace to be foreign-born (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.4-0.7), to be diagnosed in public than private hospitals (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.5-0.8) and in teaching than non-teaching hospitals (OR = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.6-1.1), and were more likely to have been diagnosed at a large regional health maintenance organization (OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.3-2.2) and after 1995 (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.1-2.1). Among Asians with registry birthplace information (n = 1187), sensitivity and predictive value positive for birthplace exceeded 90…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/b:caco.0000024244.91775.64

Cites

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”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gomez, S. L., Glaser, S. L., Kelsey, J. L., & Lee, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Cancer Prevention Institute of California (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Gomez, Scarlett L.
Venue
Cancer Causes & Control
Published
2004-04
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
243-253
ISSN
  • 0957-5243 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7225
OpenAlex
W2070038604
Cited by
60
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cancer Causes & Control (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (n01cn065107-001)
  • National Cancer Institute (T32CA066521, 1T32CA66521, 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
data completeness, misclassification, Asian immigrants, cancer registry data quality, hospital characteristics, health maintenance organizations, language preference
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Asian, California, Emigration and Immigration, Female, Humans, Language, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Registries, Residence Characteristics, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Bias, 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