Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27371553›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Validation of administrative hospital data for identifying incident pancreatic and periampullary cancer cases: a population-based study using linked cancer registry and administrative hospital data in New South Wales, Australia.

Nicola Creighton, Richard Walton, David Roder, Sanchia Aranda, David Currow

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Detection of incident breast and colorectal cancer cases from an administrative healthcare database in Catalonia, Spain.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Nicola CreightonCancer Institute NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Richard WaltonCancer Institute NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David RoderCancer Institute NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Sanchia ArandaCancer Council Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David CurrowCancer Institute NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesInforming cancer service delivery with timely and accurate data is essential to cancer control activities and health system monitoring. This study aimed to assess the validity of ascertaining incident cases and resection use for pancreatic and periampullary cancers from linked administrative hospital data, compared with data from a cancer registry (the 'gold standard'). DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsAnalysis of linked statutory population-based cancer registry data and administrative hospital data for adults (aged ≥18 years) with a pancreatic or periampullary cancer case diagnosed during 2005-2009 or a hospital admission for these cancers between 2005 and 2013 in New South Wales, Australia.

methodsThe sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of pancreatic and periampullary cancer case ascertainment from hospital admission data were calculated for the 2005-2009 period through comparison with registry data. We examined the effect of the look-back period to distinguish incident cancer cases from prevalent cancer cases from hospital admission data using 2009 and 2013 as index years.

resultsSensitivity of case ascertainment from the hospital data was 87.5% (4322/4939), with higher sensitivity when the cancer was resected (97.9%, 715/730) and for pancreatic cancers (88.6%, 3733/4211). Sensitivity was lower in regional (83.3%) and remote (85.7%) areas, particularly in areas with interstate outflow of patients for treatment, and for cases notified to the registry by death certificate only (9.6%). The PPV for the identification of incident cases was 82.0% (4322/5272). A 2-year look-back period distinguished the majority (98%) of incident cases from prevalent cases in linked hospital data.

conclusionsPancreatic and periampullary cancer cases and resection use can be ascertained from linked hospital admission data with sufficient validity for informing aspects of health service delivery and system-level monitoring. Limited tumour clinical information and variation in case ascertainment across population subgroups are limitations of hospital-derived cancer incidence data when compared with population cancer registries.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualHospitalsMedical Record LinkageNeoplasmsPatient AdmissionRegistriesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedNew South WalesAdministrative dataCancer incidenceHospital admission dataRegistriesSensitivity

Identifiers

PMID27371553
PMCPMC4947808

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.