ArticleF1000Research2015
Validating the use of Medicare Australia billing data to examine trends in skin cancer.
Article in F1000Research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilization of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in Australia following government subsidization: Trends in primary staging and biochemical recurrence.Prostate international · 2026Article
- A 24-Year Analysis of Percutaneous Renal Biopsy Trends in Australia.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Time to castrate the cost? the rising expense of chemical castration for the management of prostate cancer.Prostate international · 2025Article
- The effect of screening on melanoma incidence and biopsy rates.The British journal of dermatology · 2022Article
- Association of Age-Related Cataract With Skin Cancer in an Australian Population.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2020Article
- Trends in percutaneous renal biopsy: The evolving diagnostic pathway for the small renal mass.Urology annalsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpidemiological data surrounding non-melanomatous skin cancer (NMSC) is highly variable, in part due to the lack of government cancer registries. Several studies employ the use of Medical Australia (MA) rebate data in assessing such trends, the validity of which has not been studied in the past. Conversely, melanoma skin cancer is a notifiable disease, and thus, MA and cancer registry data is readily available. The aim of the current study is to assess the use of MA for epidemiological measures for skin cancers, by using melanoma as a disease sample.
methodsFollowing ethics approval, data from MA and Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) from 2004-2008 were extracted. Incidence of MA and VCR unique melanoma cases were compared and stratified by age and local government area (LGA). Regression and a paired-samples t-test were performed.
resultsDuring the study period; 15,150 and 13,886 unique melanoma patients were identified through VCR and MA data sources respectively. An outlier in the >80- year age group was noted between MA and VCR data. When stratified by age, significant correlation between MA and VCR was observed for all patients (gradient 0.91, R²= 0.936) and following exclusion of >80 patients (gradient 0.96, R²= 0.995). When stratified by LGA, a high degree of observation was observed for all patients (gradient 0.94, R²= 0.977) and following exclusion of >80 patients (gradient 0.996, R²= 0.975).
conclusionDespite the inclusion of outlier data groups, acceptable correlation between MA and VCR melanoma data was observed, suggesting that MA may be suitable for assessing epidemiological trends. Such principals may be used to validate the use of MA data for similar calculations assessing NMSC trends.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.