Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Impact of Reporting Delay and Reporting Error on Cancer Incidence Rates and Trends

Clegg, L. X.·2002·CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment
DOI 10.1093/jnci/94.20.1537
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence rates and trends are a measure of the cancer burden in the general population. We studied the impact of reporting delay and reporting error on incidence rates and trends for cancers of the female breast, colorectal, lung/bronchus, prostate, and melanoma. METHODS: Based on statistical models, we obtained reporting-adjusted (i.e., adjusted for both reporting delay and reporting error) case counts for each diagnosis year beginning in 1981 using reporting information for patients diagnosed with cancer in 1981-1998 from nine cancer registries that participate in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Joinpoint linear regression was used for trend analysis. All statistical tests are two-sided. RESULTS: Initial incidence case counts (i.e., after the standard 2-year delay) accounted for only 88%-97% of the estimated final counts; it would take 4-17 years for 99% or more of the cancer cases to be reported. The percent change between reporting-adjusted and unadjusted cancer incidence rates for the 1998 diagnosis year ranged from 3% for colorectal cancers to 14% for melanoma in whites and for prostate cancer in black males. Reporting-adjusted current incidence trends for breast cancer and lung/bronchus cancer in white females showed statistically significant increases (estimated annual percent change [EAPC] = 0.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.1% to 1.2%) and 1.2%, 95% CI = 0.7% to 1.6%, respectively), whereas trends for these cancers using unadjusted incidence rates were not statistically significantly different from zero (EAPC = 0.4%, 95% CI = -0.1% to 0.9% and 0.5%, 95% CI = -0.1% to 1.1%, respectively). Reporting-adjusted melanoma incidence rates for white males showed a statistically significant increase since 1981 (EAPC = 4.1%, 95% CI = 3.8% to 4.4%) in contrast to the unadjusted incidence rate, which was most consistent with a flat or downward trend (EAPC = -4.2%, 95% CI = -11.1% to 3.3%) after 1996. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting-adjusted cancer incidence rates are valuable in precisely determining current cancer incidence rates and trends and in monitoring the timeliness of data collection. Ignoring reporting delay and reporting error may produce downwardly biased cancer incidence trends, particularly in the most recent diagnosis years.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/94.20.1537

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Clegg, L. X.
Venue
CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2002-10-16
Volume
94
Issue
20
Pages
1537-1545
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
DOI
10.1093/jnci/94.20.1537
OpenAlex
W2099698968
Cited by
278
References
0
FWCI
4.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.