ArticleOnline journal of public health informatics2018
Monitoring public health reporting: data tracking in cancer registries.
Article in Online journal of public health informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Semi-automated monitoring of deviations from historical incidence trends for enhanced timeliness in cancer control.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- MRI Waiting Time Disparities in Saudi Public Hospitals: A Six-Year Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Examining the Correlation of Google Influenza Trend with Hospital Data: Retrospective Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
- The Impact of Longer Consultation Time: A Simulation-Based Approach.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
- Inhibition of Histone Demethylases LSD1 and UTX Regulates ERα Signaling in Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTimeliness of data availability is a key performance measure in cancer reporting. Previous studies evaluated timeliness of cancer reporting using a single metric, yet this metric obscures the details within each step of the reporting process. To enhance understanding of cancer reporting processes, we measured the timeliness of discrete cancer reporting steps and examined changes in timeliness across a decade.
methodsWe analyzed 76,259 cases of breast, colorectal and lung cancer reported to the Indiana State Cancer Registry between 2001 and 2011. We measured timeliness for three fundamental reporting steps: report completion time, report submission time, and report processing time. Timeliness was measured as the difference, in days, between timestamps recorded in the cancer registry at each step. We further examined the variation in reporting time among facilities.
resultsIdentifying and gathering details about cases (report completion) accounts for the largest proportion of time during the cancer reporting process. Although submission time accounts for a lesser proportion of time, there is wide variation among facilities. One-seventh (7 out of 49) facilities accounted for 28.4% of the total cases reported, all of which took more than 100 days to submit the completed cases to the registry.
conclusionsMeasuring timeliness of the individual steps in reporting processes can enable cancer registry programs to target individual facilities as well as tasks that could be improved to reduce overall case reporting times. Process improvement could strengthen cancer control programs and enable more rapid discovery in cancer research.
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.