These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7880750)

  • 1. Why are a quarter of all cancer deaths in south-east England registered by death certificate only? Factors related to death certificate only registrations in the Thames Cancer Registry between 1987 and 1989.
    Pollock AM; Vickers N
    Br J Cancer; 1995 Mar; 71(3):637-41. PubMed ID: 7880750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The impact on colorectal cancer survival of cases registered by 'death certificate only': implications for national survival rates.
    Pollock AM; Vickers N
    Br J Cancer; 1994 Dec; 70(6):1229-31. PubMed ID: 7981082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Why did treatment rates for colorectal cancer in south east England fall between 1982 and 1988? The effect of case ascertainment and registration bias.
    Pollock AM; Benster R; Vickers N
    J Public Health Med; 1995 Dec; 17(4):419-28. PubMed ID: 8639341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reducing DCO registrations through electronic matching of cancer registry data and routine hospital data.
    Pollock AM; Vickers N
    Br J Cancer; 2000 Feb; 82(3):712-7. PubMed ID: 10682687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Interpreting international comparisons of cancer survival: the effects of incomplete registration and the presence of death certificate only cases on survival estimates.
    Robinson D; Sankila R; Hakulinen T; Møller H
    Eur J Cancer; 2007 Mar; 43(5):909-13. PubMed ID: 17300929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reliability of data of the Thames cancer registry on 673 cases of colorectal cancer: effect of the registration process.
    Pollock AM; Vickers N
    Qual Health Care; 1995 Sep; 4(3):184-9. PubMed ID: 10153427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Does exclusion of cancers registered only from death-certificate information diminish socio-demographic disparities in recorded survival?
    Tervonen HE; Roder D; Morrell S; You H; Currow DC
    Cancer Epidemiol; 2017 Jun; 48():70-77. PubMed ID: 28419901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Proportion of Death Certificate Only Cases and Its Related Factors, Kwangju Cancer Registry (KCR).
    Lee SJ; Shin MH; Kim SY; Park KS; Kim YJ; Hwang TJ; Choi JS
    Cancer Res Treat; 2001 Dec; 33(6):512-9. PubMed ID: 26680831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Correcting population-based survival for DCOs - why a simple method works and when to avoid it.
    Silcocks P; Thomson CS
    Eur J Cancer; 2009 Dec; 45(18):3298-302. PubMed ID: 19656670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Where do cancer patients die? Ten-year trends in the place of death of cancer patients in England.
    Higginson IJ; Astin P; Dolan S
    Palliat Med; 1998 Sep; 12(5):353-63. PubMed ID: 9924598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Determinants and interpretation of death certificate only proportions in the initial years of newly established cancer registries.
    Brenner H; Jansen L
    Eur J Cancer; 2013 Mar; 49(4):931-7. PubMed ID: 23084081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Data quality in population-based cancer registration: an assessment of the Merseyside and Cheshire Cancer Registry.
    Seddon DJ; Williams EM
    Br J Cancer; 1997; 76(5):667-74. PubMed ID: 9303369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Restriction to period of interest improves informative value of death certificate only proportions in period analysis of cancer survival.
    Brenner H; Jansen L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Dec; 68(12):1432-9. PubMed ID: 25881488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Variation, precision and validity of 1-year survival estimates for lung, breast, colon and prostate cancer in South East England primary care trusts.
    Lake J; Mak V; Møller H; Davies EA
    Public Health; 2012 Jan; 126(1):57-63. PubMed ID: 22153886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reduction of Death Certificate Only (DCO) Registrations by Active Follow Back.
    Turano L; Laudico A; Esteban D; Pisani P; Parkin D
    Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2002; 3(2):133-135. PubMed ID: 12718591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A mixed linear model controlling for case underascertainment across multiple cancer registries estimated time trends in survival.
    Dahm S; Bertz J; Barnes B; Kraywinkel K
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 May; 97():111-121. PubMed ID: 29329676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Death certificate only proportions should be age adjusted in studies comparing cancer survival across populations and over time.
    Brenner H; Castro FA; Eberle A; Emrich K; Holleczek B; Katalinic A; Jansen L;
    Eur J Cancer; 2016 Jan; 52():102-8. PubMed ID: 26682869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Contributions of incidence and case fatality to mortality from bladder cancer in the south Thames Regions.
    Walker A; Petruckevitch A; Bourne H; Burney P
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 1992 Aug; 46(4):387-9. PubMed ID: 1431713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Relationship of proportion of DCO cases in cancer registration to gastric cancer screening participation rate and proportion of all referred inpatients diagnosed with neoplasm].
    Nagai Y; Koinuma N
    Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi; 1993 Jul; 40(7):567-70. PubMed ID: 8369534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Limitations of the death certificate only index as a measure of incompleteness of cancer registration.
    Brenner H
    Br J Cancer; 1995 Aug; 72(2):506-10. PubMed ID: 7640240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.