Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30089467›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Self-selection in a population-based cohort study: impact on health service use and survival for bowel and lung cancer assessed using data linkage.

Nicola Creighton, Stuart Purdie, Matthew Soeberg, Richard Walton, Deborah Baker, Jane Young

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Factors affecting radiotherapy utilisation in geriatric oncology patients in NSW, Australia.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Nicola CreightonCancer Institute NSW, PO Box 41, Alexandria, Sydney, NSW, 1435, Australia. Nicola.Creighton@health.nsw.gov.au.ORCID 0000-0003-0959-6309
Stuart PurdieCancer Institute NSW, PO Box 41, Alexandria, Sydney, NSW, 1435, Australia.
Matthew SoebergAsbestos Diseases Research Institute, Sydney, Australia.
Richard WaltonCancer Institute NSW, PO Box 41, Alexandria, Sydney, NSW, 1435, Australia.
Deborah BakerCancer Institute NSW, PO Box 41, Alexandria, Sydney, NSW, 1435, Australia.
Jane YoungSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn contrast to aetiological associations, there is little empirical evidence for generalising health service use associations from cohort studies. We compared the health service use of cohort study participants diagnosed with bowel or lung cancer to the source population of people diagnosed with these cancers in New South Wales (NSW), Australia to assess the representativeness of health service use of the cohort study participants.

methodsPopulation-based cancer registry data for NSW residents aged ≥45 years at diagnosis of bowel or lung cancer were linked to the 45 and Up Study, a NSW population-based cohort study (N~ 267,000). We measured hospitalisation, emergency department (ED) attendance and all-cause survival, and risk factor associations with these outcomes using administrative data for cohort study participants and the source population. We assessed bias in prevalence and risk factor associations using ratios of relative frequency (RRF) and relative odds ratios (ROR), respectively.

resultsPeople from major cities, non-English speaking countries and with comorbidites were under-represented among cohort study participants diagnosed with bowel (n = 1837) or lung (n = 969) cancer by 20-50%. Cohort study participants had similar hospitalisation and ED attendance compared with the source population. One-year survival after major surgical resection was similar, but cohort study participants had up to 25% higher post-diagnosis survival (lung cancer 3-year survival: RRF = 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.12,1.37). Except for area-based socioeconomic position, risk factors associations with health service use measures and survival appeared relatively unbiased.

conclusionsAbsolute measures of health service use and risk factor associations in a non-representative sample showed little evidence of bias. Non-comparability of risk factor measures of cohort study participants and non-participants, such as area-based socioeconomic position, may bias estimates of risk factor associations. Primary and outpatient care outcomes may be more vulnerable to bias.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesColorectal NeoplasmsEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHealth ServicesHospitalizationHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNew South WalesRegistriesSurvival AnalysisCancerCohort studiesHealth care utilisationSelection biasSociodemographic factors

Identifiers

PMID30089467
PMCPMC6083588

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.