Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27091234›Full record

ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2016

The experience of accommodating privacy restrictions during implementation of a large-scale surveillance study of an osteoporosis medication.

Kirk D Midkiff, Elizabeth B Andrews, Alicia W Gilsenan, Dennis M Deapen, David H Harris, Maria J Schymura, Francis J Hornicek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Teriparatide Did Not Increase Adult Osteosarcoma Incidence in a 15-Year US Postmarketing Surveillance Study.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. The Forteo Patient Registry linkage to multiple state cancer registries: study design and results from the first 8 years.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kirk D MidkiffDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology and Risk Management, RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Elizabeth B AndrewsDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology and Risk Management, RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Alicia W GilsenanDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology and Risk Management, RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Dennis M DeapenLos Angeles Cancer Surveillance Program, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
David H HarrisDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology and Risk Management, RTI Health Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Maria J SchymuraNew York State Cancer Registry, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
Francis J HornicekCenter for Sarcoma and Connective Tissue Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo explore whether privacy restrictions developed to protect patients have complicated research within a 15-year surveillance study conducted with US cancer registries.

methodsData from enrolling 27 cancer registries over a 10-year period were examined to describe the amount of time needed to obtain study approval. We also analyzed the proportion of patients that completed a research interview out of the total reported by the registries and examined factors thought to influence this measure.

resultsThe average length of the research review process from submission to approval of the research was 7 months (range, <1 to 24 months), and it took 6 months or more to obtain approval of the research at 41% of the cancer registries. Most registries (78%) required additional permission steps to gain access to patients for research. After adjustment for covariates, the interview response proportion was 110% greater (ratio of response proportion = 2.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.3, 3.3) when the least restrictive versus the most restrictive permission steps were required. An interview was more often completed for patients (or proxies) if patients were alive, within a year of being diagnosed, or identified earlier in the study.

conclusionsLengthy research review processes increased the time between diagnosis and provision of patient information to the researcher. Requiring physician permission for access to patients was associated with lower subject participation. A single national point of entry for use of cancer registry data in health research is worthy of consideration to make the research approval process efficient. © 2016 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBone Density Conservation AgentsFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsOsteoporosisPrivacyProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingRegistriesTeriparatideTime FactorsUnited StatesBone Density Conservation AgentsTeriparatideepidemiologyoncologypharmacoepidemiologypostmarketing product surveillanceprivacypublic healthretrospective studiessurvey

Identifiers

PMID27091234
PMCPMC5074316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.