Do cancer survival statistics for every hospital make sense?

Morris, Melvin L.; Quaresma, Manuela; Pitkäniemi, Janne; Morris, Eva; Rachet, Bernard; Coleman, Michel P

doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30391-6

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, if there are too few patients in one hospital, the estimation of the survival rate is not robust and may cause misleading evaluation. An expert discussing whether survival statistics make sense for every hospital expressed similar concerns 47. International experts also emphasised that outcome indicators are vulnerable to inadequate sample size and statistical power 41 48.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An expert discussing whether survival statistics make sense for every hospital expressed similar concerns. 47 International experts also emphasised that outcome indicators are vulnerable to inadequate sample size and statistical power. 41 48 For these reasons, the survival rate is claimed to be optional when applying this set of quality indicators.…”

Section: Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developing quality indicators for cancer hospitals in China: a national modified Delphi process

Liu,

YU,

Liu

2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveAlthough demand and supply of cancer care have been rapidly increasing in recent decades, there is a lack of systemic quality measurement for cancer hospitals in China. This study aimed to develop a set of core indicators for measuring quality of care for cancer hospitals in China.DesignThe development of quality indicators was based on a literature review and a two-round modified Delphi survey. The theoretical framework and initial indicators were identified through the comprehensive literature review, and the selection of quality indicators relied on experts’ consensus on the importance and feasibility of indicators by the modified Delphi process. In addition, indicator weight was identified using the analytical hierarchical process method and percentage weight method.Setting and participantsA panel of leading experts including oncologists, cancer care nurses, quality management experts from various regions of China were invited to participate in the two-round modified Delphi process from October to December 2020. A total of 25 experts completed the two-round modified Delphi process.ResultsThe experts reached consensus on a set of 47 indicators, comprising 17 structure indicators, 19 process indicators and 11 outcome indicators. Experts gave much higher weight to outcome indicators (accounting for 53.96% relative weight) than to structure (16.34%) and process (29.70%) indicators. In addition, experts also showed concerns and gave suggestions on data availability of specific outcome indicators.ConclusionsDrawing on the comprehensive literature review and the modified Delphi process, this study developed a core set of quality indicators that can be used to evaluate quality performance of cancer hospitals. This is helpful in supporting quality cancer care in China and will provide new insights into the systemic measurement of cancer care internationally.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing quality indicators for cancer hospitals in China: a national modified Delphi process

Liu,

YU,

Liu

2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For all except the most common cancers and in the largest hospitals, such estimates are also affected by statistical instability. 10 Population-based cancer survival estimates differ in both purpose and scope from the survival estimates derived from clinical trials, or from the patients treated by an individual clinician, clinical team, or hospital. Population-based survival estimates are designed for public health surveillance, and to inform strategic policymaking on how to improve cancer management.…”

Section: Clinical Trials or Population-based Survival?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Survival estimates derived from a single hospital are subject to referral bias. For all except the most common cancers and in the largest hospitals, such estimates are also affected by statistical instability …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public health surveillance of cancer survival in the United States and worldwide: The contribution of the CONCORD programme

Allemani

Coleman

2017

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONCORD is a programme for the global surveillance of cancer survival. In 2015, the second cycle of the program (CONCORD‐2) established long‐term surveillance of cancer survival worldwide, for the first time, in the largest cancer survival study published to date. CONCORD‐2 provided cancer survival trends for 25,676,887 patients diagnosed during the 15‐year period between 1995 and 2009 with 1 of 10 common cancers that collectively represented 63% of the global cancer burden in 2009. Herein, the authors summarize the past, describe the present, and outline the future of the CONCORD programme. They discuss the difference between population‐based studies and clinical trials, and review the importance of international comparisons of population‐based cancer survival. This study will focus on the United States. The authors explain why population‐based survival estimates are crucial for driving effective cancer control strategies to reduce the wide and persistent disparities in cancer survival between white and black patients, which are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimal treatment. Cancer 2017;123:4977‐81. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

show abstract