ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2018
An Approach to Identify Delivery of Palliative Radiation Therapy Using Health Care Claims Data: A Proof-of-Concept Application of a Visual Analytics Tool.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThere is limited information on the use of data visualization tools for health services research applications. We provide a proof-of-concept application that focuses on claims-based measures of palliative radiation therapy. We investigate whether a guided, data-driven investigation contributes information for subsequent statistical analysis and algorithm development.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used linked registry and claims data on men who were diagnosed with stage IV M0 or stage IV M1b prostate cancer between 2005 and 2009, with associated claims from 2005 through 2010, and receiving radiation therapy. Preprocessing of data was accomplished by using EventFlow software to investigate longitudinal patterns in claims for radiation therapy in the 13 months after cancer diagnosis. Guided by results from EventFlow, we developed descriptive statistics to investigate the length of radiation therapy, use of bone metastasis coding, and mortality between M1b and M0 patients.
resultsA total of 1,151 patients met the inclusion criteria. Taking advantage of the novel aggregation capability of EventFlow, we observed differences in the length of radiation therapy and the use of bone metastasis coding between men with (M1b) and without (M0) a diagnosis of bone metastasis. Seventy-nine percent of M1b patients received radiation for a duration ≤ 4 weeks, which suggested palliative radiation (to the bone). Seventy-six percent of M0 patients received radiation for ≥ 6 weeks, which suggested radiation to the prostate. Mortality was higher among those who received a shorter duration of radiation therapy compared with those who received a longer duration of therapy.
conclusionUse of EventFlow, followed by statistical analysis of the linked registry and claims data, identified useful components of a claims-based measure of radiation to the bone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.