Publication Date:
2012-12-28
Description:
Background: Data accuracy and completeness are crucial for ensuring both the correctness and epidemiological relevance of a given data set. In this study we evaluated a clinical register in the administrative district of Marburg-Biedenkopf, Germany, for these criteria. Methods: The register contained data gathered from a comprehensive integrated breast-cancer network from three hospitals that treated all included incident cases of malignant breast cancer in two distinct time periods from 1996--97 (N=389) and 2003--04 (N=488). To assess the accuracy of this data, we compared distributions of risk, prognostic, and predictive factors with distributions from established secondary databases to detect any deviations from these [prime][prime]true[prime][prime] population parameters. To evaluate data completeness, we calculated epidemiological standard measures as well as incidence-mortality-ratios (IMRs). Results: In total, 12% (13 of 109) of the variables exhibited inaccuracies: 9% (5 out of 56) in 1996--97 and 15% (8 out of 53) in 2003--04. In contrast to raw, unstandardized incidence rates, (in-) directly age-standardized incidence rates showed no systematic deviations. Our final completeness estimates were IMR=36% (1996--97) and IMR=43% (2003--04). Conclusion: Overall, the register contained accurate, complete, and correct data. Regional differences accounted for detected inaccuracies. Demographic shifts occurred. Age-standardized measures indicate an acceptable degree of completeness. The IMR method of measuring completeness was inappropriate for incidence-based data registers. For the rising number of population-based health-care networks, further methodological advancements are necessary. Correct and epidemiologically relevant data are crucial for clinical and health-policy decision-making.
Electronic ISSN:
1756-0500
Topics:
Biology
,
Medicine
Permalink