ArticleBMJ open2016
Validity of breast, lung and colorectal cancer diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Accuracy of administrative databases in detecting primary breast cancer diagnoses: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Alterations in PGC1α expression levels are involved in colorectal cancer risk: a qualitative systematic review.BMC cancer · 2017Pooled it
- Validity of cerebrovascular ICD-9-CM codes in healthcare administrative databases. The Umbria Data-Value Project.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Short-term postoperative outcomes of colorectal cancer among patients with chronic liver disease: a national population-based study.BMJ open · 2018Observational
- Accuracy of colorectal cancer ICD-9-CM codes in Italian administrative healthcare databases: a cross-sectional diagnostic study.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with a novel nano-size contrast agent for the clinical diagnosis of patients with lung cancer.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018Article
- Article
- Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: protocol for a systematic review.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Article
- Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review.Clinical epidemiology · 2017Review
- Article
- Validation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnoses in healthcare databases: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBreast, lung and colorectal cancers constitute the most common cancers worldwide and their epidemiology, related health outcomes and quality indicators can be studied using administrative healthcare databases. To constitute a reliable source for research, administrative healthcare databases need to be validated. The aim of this protocol is to perform the first systematic review of studies reporting the validation of International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th revision codes to identify breast, lung and colorectal cancer diagnoses in administrative healthcare databases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review protocol has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, using appropriate search strategies. We will include validation studies that used administrative data to identify breast, lung and colorectal cancer diagnoses or studies that evaluated the validity of breast, lung and colorectal cancer codes in administrative data. The following inclusion criteria will be used: (1) the presence of a reference standard case definition for the disease of interest; (2) the presence of at least one test measure (eg, sensitivity, positive predictive values, etc) and (3) the use of data source from an administrative database. Pairs of reviewers will independently abstract data using standardised forms and will assess quality using a checklist based on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD) criteria. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. We will submit results of this study to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. The results will serve as a guide to identify appropriate case definitions and algorithms of breast, lung and colorectal cancers for researchers involved in validating administrative healthcare databases as well as for outcome research on these conditions that used administrative healthcare databases. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015026881.
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.