Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29496653›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2018

Toward Timely Data for Cancer Research: Assessment and Reengineering of the Cancer Reporting Process.

Abdulrahman M Jabour, Brian E Dixon, Josette F Jones, David A Haggstrom

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2018. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Monitoring public health reporting: data tracking in cancer registries.Online journal of public health informatics · 2018
    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

4 authors.

Abdulrahman M JabourHealth Informatics Department, Faculty of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1397-582X
Brian E DixonCenter for Biomedical Informatics, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1121-0607
Josette F JonesDepartment of BioHealth Informatics, School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University & Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4996-8595
David A HaggstromHealth Services Research and Development Center for Health Information and Communication, Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3637-6950

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer registries systematically collect cancer-related data to support cancer surveillance activities. However, cancer data are often unavailable for months to years after diagnosis, limiting its utility.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to identify the barriers to rapid cancer reporting and identify ways to shorten the turnaround time.

methodsCertified cancer registrars reporting to the Indiana State Department of Health cancer registry participated in a semistructured interview. Registrars were asked to describe the reporting process, estimate the duration of each step, and identify any barriers that may impact the reporting speed. Qualitative data analysis was performed with the intent of generating recommendations for workflow redesign. The existing and redesigned workflows were simulated for comparison.

resultsBarriers to rapid reporting included access to medical records from multiple facilities and the waiting period from diagnosis to treatment. The redesigned workflow focused on facilitating data sharing between registrars and applying a more efficient queuing technique while registrars await the delivery of treatment. The simulation results demonstrated that our recommendations to reduce the waiting period and share information could potentially improve the average reporting speed by 87 days.

conclusionsKnowing the time elapsing at each step within the reporting process helps in prioritizing the needs and estimating the impact of future interventions. Where some previous studies focused on automating some of the cancer reporting activities, we anticipate much shorter reporting by leveraging health information technologies to target this waiting period.

Indexed as

computer simulationdata collectionepidemiological monitoringneoplasmsregistriesSEER programworkflow

Identifiers

PMID29496653
PMCPMC5856936

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.