Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28263996›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Reproducibility, reliability and validity of population-based administrative health data for the assessment of cancer non-related comorbidities.

Camille Maringe, Helen Fowler, Bernard Rachet, Miguel Angel Luque-Fernandez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Prediagnostic primary care consultations and imaging in emergency-diagnosed versus referred patients with lung cancer: a population-based linked data study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Camille MaringeCancer survival group, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8739-9565
Helen FowlerCancer survival group, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Bernard RachetCancer survival group, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5837-7773
Miguel Angel Luque-FernandezCancer survival group, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6683-5164
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18525
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with comorbidities do not receive optimal treatment for their cancer, leading to lower cancer survival. Information on individual comorbidities is not straightforward to derive from population-based administrative health datasets. We described the development of a reproducible algorithm to extract the individual Charlson index comorbidities from such data. We illustrated the algorithm with 1,789 laryngeal cancer patients diagnosed in England in 2013. We aimed to clearly set out and advocate the time-related assumptions specified in the algorithm by providing empirical evidence for them.

methodsComorbidities were assessed from hospital records in the ten years preceding cancer diagnosis and internal reliability of the hospital records was checked. Data were right-truncated 6 or 12 months prior to cancer diagnosis to avoid inclusion of potentially cancer-related comorbidities. We tested for collider bias using Cox regression.

resultsOur administrative data showed weak to moderate internal reliability to identify comorbidities (ICC ranging between 0.1 and 0.6) but a notably high external validity (86.3%). We showed a reverse protective effect of non-cancer related Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) when the effect is split into cancer and non-cancer related COPD (Age-adjusted HR: 0.95, 95% CI:0.7-1.28 for non-cancer related comorbidities). Furthermore, we showed that a window of 6 years before diagnosis is an optimal period for the assessment of comorbidities.

conclusionTo formulate a robust approach for assessing common comorbidities, it is important that assumptions made are explicitly stated and empirically proven. We provide a transparent and consistent approach useful to researchers looking to assess comorbidities for cancer patients using administrative health data.

Indexed as

Population SurveillanceAlgorithmsComorbidityEnglandFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleNeoplasmsProportional Hazards ModelsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID28263996
PMCPMC5338773
OpenAlexW2594506478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.