4.7 Article

National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program Data Validation Project

期刊

CANCER
卷 120, 期 16, 页码 2597-2603

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28825

关键词

validation studies; breast cancer; cervical cancer; data quality; medical records; abstracting

类别

资金

  1. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an Agency of the Department of Health and Human Services [200-2012-M-52408 00002]
  2. CDC [MTS2002-Q-000618]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the quality of national data generated by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP); to assess variables collected through the program that are appropriate to use for program management, evaluation, and data analysis; and to identify potential data-quality issues. METHODS: Information was abstracted randomly from 5603 medical records selected from 6 NBCCEDP-funded state programs, and 76 categorical variables and 11 text-based breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic variables were collected. Concordance was estimated between abstracted data and the data collected by the NBCCEDP. Overall and outcome-specific concordance was calculated for each of the key variables. Four screening performance measures also were estimated by comparing the program data with the abstracted data. RESULTS: Basic measures of program outcomes, such as the percentage of women with cancer or with abnormal screening tests, had a high concordance rate. Variables with poor or inconsistent concordance included reported breast symptoms, receipt of fine-needle aspiration, and receipt of colposcopy with biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: The overall conclusion from this comprehensive validation project of the NBCCEDP is that, with few exceptions, the data collected from individual program sites and reported to the CDC are valid and consistent with sociodemographic and clinical data within medical records. (C) 2014 American Cancer Society.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据