ArticleBMJ open2016
Do GPs know their patients with cancer? Assessing the quality of cancer registration in Dutch primary care: a cross-sectional validation study.
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 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- QResearch primary care records linked to national hospital and cancer registry data: a validation study.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Quality of Cancer-Related Clinical Coding in Primary Care in North Central London: Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Project.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- GP Consultations for Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) After mRNA and Adeno-Vector-Based COVID-19 Vaccination-An Exposure-Anchored Self-Controlled Cohort Study Based on Primary Healthcare Data From the Netherlands.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Cataloguing and evaluating Irish health data resources for primary care cancer research.BJC reports · 2025Review
- Article
- Early detection of colorectal cancer by leveraging Dutch primary care consultation notes with free text embeddings.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Qualitative analysis of the coding of pathological data of cancer registry centers: A study in North of Iran.PloS one · 2023Article
- Practice variation in opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in Dutch primary care: A retrospective database study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Non-acute chest pain in primary care; referral rates, communication and guideline adherence: a cohort study using routinely collected health data.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- A population-based linked cohort of cancer and primary care data: A new source to study the management of cancer in primary care.European journal of cancer care · 2022Article
- Assessing Cancer History Accuracy in Primary Care Electronic Health Records Through Cancer Registry Linkage.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
- A steep increase in healthcare seeking behaviour in the last months before colorectal cancer diagnosis.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Article
- Non-dispensing pharmacist integrated in the primary care team: effect on the quality of physician's prescribing, a non-randomised comparative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2020Article
- Time to diagnosis of symptomatic gastric and oesophageal cancer in the Netherlands: Where is the room for improvement?United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Article
- Article
- Identification of patients with moderate medically unexplained physical symptoms in primary care with a five years follow-up.BMC family practice · 2019Article
- Genetics in primary care: validating a tool to pre-symptomatically assess common disease risk using an Australian questionnaire on family history.Clinical and translational medicine · 2019Article
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
objectivesTo assess the quality of cancer registry in primary care. DESIGN AND
settingA cross-sectional validation study using linked data from primary care electronic health records (EHRs) and the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). POPULATION: 290 000 patients, registered with 120 general practitioners (GPs), from 50 practice centres in the Utrecht area, the Netherlands, in January 2013.
interventionLinking the EHRs of all patients in the Julius General Practitioners' Network database at an individual patient level to the full NCR (∼1.7 million tumours between 1989 and 2011), to determine the proportion of matching cancer diagnoses. Full-text EHR extraction and manual analysis for non-matching diagnoses.
main outcome measuresProportions of matching and non-matching breast, lung, colorectal and prostate cancer diagnoses between 2007 and 2011, stratified by age category, cancer type and EHR system. Differences in year of diagnosis between the EHR and the NCR. Reasons for non-matching diagnoses.
resultsIn the Primary Care EHR, 60.6% of cancer cases were registered and coded in accordance with the NCR. Of the EHR diagnoses, 48.9% were potentially false positive (not registered in the NCR). Results differed between EHR systems but not between age categories or cancer types. The year of diagnosis corresponded in 80.6% of matching coded diagnoses. Adding full-text EHR analysis improved results substantially. A national disease registry (the NCR) proved incomplete.
conclusionsEven though GPs do know their patients with cancer, only 60.6% are coded in concordance with the NCR. Reusers of coded EHR data should be aware that 40% of cases can be missed, and almost half can be false positive. The type of EHR system influences registration quality. If full-text manual EHR analysis is used, only 10% of cases will be missed and 20% of cases found will be wrong. EHR data should only be reused with care.
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.