Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29739338›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Measuring colorectal cancer incidence: the performance of an algorithm using administrative health data.

Mamadou Diop, Erin C Strumpf, Geetanjali D Datta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. 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
  5. Article
  6. Heparan Sulfate Proteoglycans in Human Colorectal Cancer.Analytical cellular pathology (Amsterdam) · 2018
    Review
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

3 authors.

Mamadou DiopDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, École de santé publique, Université de Montréal , C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville, Montreal, QC, H3C3J7, Canada.
Erin C StrumpfDepartment of Economics and Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Leacock Building, Room 418, 855 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC, H3A 2T7, Canada.
Geetanjali D DattaDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, École de santé publique, Université de Montréal , C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-ville, Montreal, QC, H3C3J7, Canada. geetanjali.datta@umontreal.ca.

Funding

CIHR 123278
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCertain cancer case ascertainment methods used in Quebec and elsewhere are known to underestimate the burden of cancer, particularly for some subgroups. Algorithms using claims data are a low-cost option to improve the quality of cancer surveillance, but have not frequently been implemented at the population-level. Our objectives were to 1) develop a colorectal cancer (CRC) case ascertainment algorithm using population-level hospitalization and physician billing data, 2) validate the algorithm, and 3) describe the characteristics of cases.

methodsWe linked physician billing, hospitalization, and tumor registry data for 2,013,430 Montreal residents age 20+ (2000-2010). We compared the performance of three algorithms based on diagnosis and treatment codes from different data sources. We described identified cases according to age, sex, socioeconomic status, treatment patterns, site distribution, and time trends. All statistical tests were two-sided.

resultsOur algorithm based on diagnosis and treatment codes identified 11,476 of the 12,933 incident CRC cases contained in the tumor registry as well as 2317 newly-captured cases. Our cases share similar overall time trends and site distributions to existing data, which increases our confidence in the algorithm. Our algorithm captured proportionally 35% more individuals age 50 and younger among CRC cases: 8.2% vs. 5.3%. The newly captured cases were also more likely to be living in socioeconomically advantaged areas.

conclusionsOur algorithm provides a more complete picture of population-wide CRC incidence than existing case ascertainment methods. It could be used to estimate long-term incidence trends, aid in timely surveillance, and to inform interventions, in both Quebec and other jurisdictions.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAdministrative Claims, HealthcareAgedCanadaColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHospitalizationHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesAdministrative health dataAlgorithmCancer registryColorectal cancerIncidence

Identifiers

PMID29739338
PMCPMC5941340

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.