Completeness of ascertainment by cancer registries: putting bounds on the number of missing cases.
BACKGROUND: When comparing cancer incidence or mortality rates between different regions, it is important to know how complete the registration data are on which these figures are based. A number of ways of estimating completeness have been proposed, but it is often difficult to say how precise these estimates are. We describe a computer program developed to produce measures of precision for estimates of completeness obtained by one such method, the flow method. METHODS: The program works by resampling the required data sets, and repeatedly calculating completeness estimates until convergence of the standard errors occurs. It was tested on colorectal tumours from a single health district, and empirical confidence limits for 1 and 5 year completeness were compared with those obtained by applying various normalizing transformations and a beta distribution. The method was then applied to tumours of the head and neck, breast and lung and the results compared with those from a capture-mark-recapture exercise carried out 4 years previously. RESULTS: The sampling distribution was close to normal for 1 year completeness, but much less so for 5 year completeness, as assessed by quantile plots. Approximation by a beta distribution was better than by normalizing transformation. Although there were differences between the results produced by the flow method and capture-recapture, the flow method is more reproducible and easier to apply. CONCLUSION: It is now possible to estimate confidence limits for the results of the flow method, and thus determine whether comparative results between registries are likely to be affected by sampling error.