Abstract：
Epidemiological studies of incidence play an essential role in quantifying disease burden, resource planning, and informing public health policies. A variety of measures for estimating cancer incidence have been used. Appropriate reporting of incidence calculations is essential to enable clear interpretation. This review uses colorectal cancer (CRC) as an exemplar to summarize and describe variation in commonly employed incidence measures and evaluate the quality of reporting incidence methods.
We searched four databases for CRC incidence studies published between January 2010 and May 2020. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts. Eligible studies were population-based cancer registry studies evaluating CRC incidence. We extracted data on study characteristics and author-defined criteria for assessing the quality of reporting incidence. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the information.
This review retrieved 165 relevant articles. The age-standardized incidence rate (ASR) (80%) was the most commonly reported incidence measure, and the 2000 U.S. standard population the most commonly used reference population (39%). Slightly more than half (54%) of the studies reported CRC incidence stratified by anatomical site. The quality of reporting incidence methods was suboptimal. Of all included studies: 45 (27%) failed to report the classification system used to define CRC; 63 (38%) did not report CRC codes; and only 20 (12%) documented excluding certain CRC cases from the numerator. Concerning the denominator estimation: 61% of studies failed to state the source of population data; 24 (15%) indicated census years; 10 (6%) reported the method used to estimate yearly population counts; and only 5 (3%) explicitly explained the population size estimation procedure to calculate the overall average incidence rate. Thirty-three (20%) studies reported the confidence interval for incidence, and only 7 (4%) documented methods for dealing with missing data.
This review identified variations in incidence calculation and inadequate reporting of methods. We outlined recommendations to optimize incidence estimation and reporting practices. There is a need to establish clear guidelines for incidence reporting to facilitate assessment of the validity and interpretation of reported incidence.
We searched four databases for CRC incidence studies published between January 2010 and May 2020. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts. Eligible studies were population-based cancer registry studies evaluating CRC incidence. We extracted data on study characteristics and author-defined criteria for assessing the quality of reporting incidence. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the information.
This review retrieved 165 relevant articles. The age-standardized incidence rate (ASR) (80%) was the most commonly reported incidence measure, and the 2000 U.S. standard population the most commonly used reference population (39%). Slightly more than half (54%) of the studies reported CRC incidence stratified by anatomical site. The quality of reporting incidence methods was suboptimal. Of all included studies: 45 (27%) failed to report the classification system used to define CRC; 63 (38%) did not report CRC codes; and only 20 (12%) documented excluding certain CRC cases from the numerator. Concerning the denominator estimation: 61% of studies failed to state the source of population data; 24 (15%) indicated census years; 10 (6%) reported the method used to estimate yearly population counts; and only 5 (3%) explicitly explained the population size estimation procedure to calculate the overall average incidence rate. Thirty-three (20%) studies reported the confidence interval for incidence, and only 7 (4%) documented methods for dealing with missing data.
This review identified variations in incidence calculation and inadequate reporting of methods. We outlined recommendations to optimize incidence estimation and reporting practices. There is a need to establish clear guidelines for incidence reporting to facilitate assessment of the validity and interpretation of reported incidence.
摘要：
发病率的流行病学研究在量化疾病负担中起着至关重要的作用。资源规划,并告知公共卫生政策。已经使用了多种估计癌症发病率的措施。适当的发病率计算报告对于实现清晰的解释至关重要。这篇综述以结直肠癌（CRC）为样本，总结和描述常用发病率指标的变化，并评估报告发病率方法的质量。
我们检索了四个数据库中2010年1月至2020年5月期间发表的CRC发病率研究。两名独立审稿人筛选了所有标题和摘要。符合条件的研究是基于人群的癌症登记研究，评估CRC发病率。我们提取了有关研究特征和作者定义的标准的数据，以评估报告发生率的质量。我们使用描述性统计来总结信息。
这篇评论检索了165篇相关文章。年龄标准化发病率（ASR）（80％）是最常见的发病率指标，和2000年美国标准人群最常用的参考人群（39%）。略超过一半（54％）的研究报告了按解剖部位分层的CRC发生率。报告发病率方法的质量欠佳。在所有纳入的研究中：45（27％）没有报告用于定义CRC的分类系统；63（38％）没有报告CRC代码；只有20（12％）记录了从分子中排除某些CRC病例。关于分母估计：61％的研究未能说明人口数据的来源；24（15％）表示人口普查年份；10（6％）报告了用于估计年度人口数量的方法；只有5（3％）明确解释了人口规模估计程序以计算总体平均发病率。33项(20%)研究报告了发病率的置信区间，只有7种(4%)记录了处理缺失数据的方法。
这篇综述确定了发病率计算的差异和方法报告的不足。我们概述了优化发病率估计和报告实践的建议。有必要制定明确的发病率报告指南，以促进对报告发病率的有效性和解释的评估。
我们检索了四个数据库中2010年1月至2020年5月期间发表的CRC发病率研究。两名独立审稿人筛选了所有标题和摘要。符合条件的研究是基于人群的癌症登记研究，评估CRC发病率。我们提取了有关研究特征和作者定义的标准的数据，以评估报告发生率的质量。我们使用描述性统计来总结信息。
这篇评论检索了165篇相关文章。年龄标准化发病率（ASR）（80％）是最常见的发病率指标，和2000年美国标准人群最常用的参考人群（39%）。略超过一半（54％）的研究报告了按解剖部位分层的CRC发生率。报告发病率方法的质量欠佳。在所有纳入的研究中：45（27％）没有报告用于定义CRC的分类系统；63（38％）没有报告CRC代码；只有20（12％）记录了从分子中排除某些CRC病例。关于分母估计：61％的研究未能说明人口数据的来源；24（15％）表示人口普查年份；10（6％）报告了用于估计年度人口数量的方法；只有5（3％）明确解释了人口规模估计程序以计算总体平均发病率。33项(20%)研究报告了发病率的置信区间，只有7种(4%)记录了处理缺失数据的方法。
这篇综述确定了发病率计算的差异和方法报告的不足。我们概述了优化发病率估计和报告实践的建议。有必要制定明确的发病率报告指南，以促进对报告发病率的有效性和解释的评估。
