Aarhus University Seal / Aarhus Universitets segl

Sisse Helle Njor

Validity of data in the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Database

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review


  • Mette Kielsholm Thomsen
  • Sisse Helle Njor
  • Morten Rasmussen, Department of Digestive Diseases K, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen.
  • ,
  • Dorte Linnemann, Department of Pathology, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev.
  • ,
  • Berit Andersen
  • Gunnar Baatrup, Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Institute of Clinical Research, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: rmieritz@health.sdu.dk.
  • ,
  • Lennart Jan Friis-Hansen, Københavns Universitet
  • ,
  • Jens Christian Riis Jørgensen, Department of Colorectal Cancer Surgery, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark.
  • ,
  • Ellen Margrethe Mikkelsen

BACKGROUND: 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.

OBJECTIVE: 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).

METHODS: 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".

RESULTS: 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.

CONCLUSION: 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.

TidsskriftClinical epidemiology
Sider (fra-til)105-111
Antal sider7
StatusUdgivet - 2017

Se relationer på Aarhus Universitet Citationsformater

ID: 126377488