Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26993624›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Validity of breast, lung and colorectal cancer diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol.

Iosief Abraha, Gianni Giovannini, Diego Serraino, Mario Fusco, Alessandro Montedori

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

5 authors.

Iosief AbrahaHealth Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Perugia, Italy.
Gianni GiovanniniHealth Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Perugia, Italy.
Diego SerrainoEpidemiology and Biostatistic Unit, IRCCS Centro di Riferimento Oncologico Aviano, Aviano, Italy.
Mario FuscoRegistro Tumori Regione Campania, ASL NA3 Sud, Brusciano (Na), Italy.
Alessandro MontedoriHealth Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Perugia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Research DesignBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesLung NeoplasmsSystematic Reviews as TopicAdministrative databaseBreast, lung and colorectal diseaseInternational Classification of DiseasesSensitivity and SpecificityValidity

Identifiers

PMID26993624
PMCPMC4800131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.