Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30037859›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2018

Accuracy of administrative databases in detecting primary breast cancer diagnoses: a systematic review.

Iosief Abraha, Alessandro Montedori, Diego Serraino, Massimiliano Orso, Gianni Giovannini, Valeria Scotti, Annalisa Granata, Francesco Cozzolino, Mario Fusco, Ettore Bidoli

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04331535 (Pragmatic Randomized Trial of Polygenic Risk Scoring for Common Diseases in Primary Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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.

NCT04331535 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Pragmatic Randomized Trial of Polygenic Risk Scoring for Common Diseases in Primary Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorBoston VA Research Institute, Inc.Ran2020 to 2025Enrolled1,076ConditionsCoronary Artery Disease, Atrial Fibrillation, Type 2 Diabetes, Colorectal CancerArmsPolygenic risk score (PRS)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors.

Iosief AbrahaHealth Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Perugia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5440-775X
Alessandro MontedoriHealth Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Perugia, Italy.
Diego SerrainoCancer Epidemiology Unit, IRCCS Centro di Riferimento Oncologico Aviano, Aviano, Italy.
Massimiliano OrsoHealth Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Perugia, Italy.
Gianni GiovanniniHealth Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Perugia, Italy.
Valeria ScottiCenter for Scientific Documentation, IRCCS Policlinico S. Matteo Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Annalisa GranataRegistro Tumori Regione Campania, ASL Napoli 3 Sud, Brusciano, Italy.
Francesco CozzolinoHealth Planning Service, Regional Health Authority of Umbria, Perugia, Italy.
Mario FuscoRegistro Tumori Regione Campania, ASL Napoli 3 Sud, Brusciano, Italy.
Ettore BidoliCancer Epidemiology Unit, IRCCS Centro di Riferimento Oncologico Aviano, Aviano, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo define the accuracy of administrative datasets to identify primary diagnoses of breast cancer based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th or 10th revision codes.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library (April 2017). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The inclusion criteria were: (a) the presence of a reference standard; (b) the presence of at least one accuracy test measure (eg, sensitivity) and (c) the use of an administrative database. DATA EXTRACTION: Eligible studies were selected and data extracted independently by two reviewers; quality was assessed using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy criteria. DATA ANALYSIS: Extracted data were synthesised using a narrative approach.

resultsFrom 2929 records screened 21 studies were included (data collection period between 1977 and 2011). Eighteen studies evaluated ICD-9 codes (11 of which assessed both invasive breast cancer (code 174.x) and carcinoma in situ (ICD-9 233.0)); three studies evaluated invasive breast cancer-related ICD-10 codes. All studies except one considered incident cases.The initial algorithm results were: sensitivity ≥80% in 11 of 17 studies (range 57%-99%); positive predictive value was ≥83% in 14 of 19 studies (range 15%-98%) and specificity ≥98% in 8 studies. The combination of the breast cancer diagnosis with surgical procedures, chemoradiation or radiation therapy, outpatient data or physician claim may enhance the accuracy of the algorithms in some but not all circumstances. Accuracy for breast cancer based on outpatient or physician's data only or breast cancer diagnosis in secondary position diagnosis resulted low.

conclusionBased on the retrieved evidence, administrative databases can be employed to identify primary breast cancer. The best algorithm suggested is ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes located in primary position. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015026881.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBreast NeoplasmsDatasets as TopicFemaleHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesPredictive Value of TestsReference StandardsRegistriesaccuracyadministrative databasebreast cancersensitivity and specificitysystematic reviewvalidity

Identifiers

PMID30037859
PMCPMC6059263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.