Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26242527›Full record

ArticleSouth African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde2015

South African National Cancer Registry: Effect of withheld data from private health systems on cancer incidence estimates.

E Singh, J M Underwood, C Nattey, C Babb, M Sengayi, P Kellett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

E SinghCancer Epidemiology Research Group, National Cancer Registry, National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa; Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. elvira.singh@nioh.nhls.ac.za.
J M Underwood
C Nattey
C Babb
M Sengayi
P Kellett

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe National Cancer Registry (NCR) was established as a pathology-based cancer reporting system. From 2005 to 2007, private health laboratories withheld cancer reports owing to concerns regarding voluntary sharing of patient data.

objectivesTo estimate the impact of under-reported cancer data from private health laboratories.

methodsA linear regression analysis was conducted to project expected cancer cases for 2005-2007. Differences between actual and projected figures were calculated to estimate percentage under-reporting.

resultsThe projected NCR case total varied from 53,407 (3.8% net increase from actual cases reported) in 2005 to 54,823 (3.7% net increase) in 2007. The projected number of reported cases from private laboratories in 2005 was 26,359 (19.7% net increase from actual cases reported), 27,012 (18.8% net increase) in 2006 and 27,666 (28.4% net increase) in 2007.

conclusionWhile private healthcare reporting decreased by 28% from 2005 to 2007, this represented a minimal impact on overall cancer reporting (net decrease of <4%).

Indexed as

AgedElectronic Health RecordsHumansIncidenceNeoplasmsRegistriesRetrospective StudiesSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID26242527
PMCPMC4591919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.