| Title |
Validity of data in the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Database
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epidemiology, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s124454 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mette Kielsholm Thomsen, Sisse Helle Njor, Morten Rasmussen, Dorte Linnemann, Berit Andersen, Gunnar Baatrup, Lennart Jan Friis-Hansen, Jens Christian Riis Jørgensen, Ellen Margrethe Mikkelsen |
| Abstract |
In Denmark, a nationwide screening program for colorectal cancer was implemented in March 2014. Along with this, a clinical database for program monitoring and research purposes was established. The aim of this study was to estimate the agreement and validity of diagnosis and procedure codes in the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Database (DCCSD). All individuals with a positive immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) result who were invited to screening in the first 3 months since program initiation were identified. From these, a sample of 150 individuals was selected using stratified random sampling by age, gender and region of residence. Data from the DCCSD were compared with data from hospital records, which were used as the reference. Agreement, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were estimated for categories of codes "clean colon", "colonoscopy performed", "overall completeness of colonoscopy", "incomplete colonoscopy", "polypectomy", "tumor tissue left behind", "number of polyps", "lost polyps", "risk group of polyps" and "colorectal cancer and polyps/benign tumor". Hospital records were available for 136 individuals. Agreement was highest for "colorectal cancer" (97.1%) and lowest for "lost polyps" (88.2%). Sensitivity varied between moderate and high, with 60.0% for "incomplete colonoscopy" and 98.5% for "colonoscopy performed". Specificity was 92.7% or above, except for the categories "colonoscopy performed" and "overall completeness of colonoscopy", where the specificity was low; however, the estimates were imprecise. A high level of agreement between categories of codes in DCCSD and hospital records indicates that DCCSD reflects the hospital records well. Further, the validity of the categories of codes varied from moderate to high. Thus, the DCCSD may be a valuable data source for future research on colorectal cancer screening. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 22% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2018.
All research outputs
#7,661,523
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#305
of 734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,873
of 422,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.