ArticleBMJ open2019
Exploring the added value of hospital-registry data for showing local service outcomes: cancers of the ovary, fallopian tube and peritoneum.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the added value of hospital-registry data on invasive epithelial ovarian, tubal and peritoneal cancers.
designHistoric cohort analyses.
methodsUnadjusted and adjusted regression.
settingMajor South Australian hospitals.
participants1596 women (1984-2015 diagnoses).
results5-Year and 10-year survival was 48% and 41%, respectively, equivalent to relative survival for Australia and the USA. After adjusting for age, clinical and geographic factors, risk of ovarian cancer death was 25% lower in 2010-2015 than 1984-1989. Women generally had surgical treatment (87%) in their first round of care. This was more common for younger patients (adjusted OR (95% CIs) 0.17 (0.04 to 0.65) for 80+ vs <40 years) and earlier International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stages (adjusted OR 0.48 (0.13 to 1.78) for stage IIIB/C and 0.13 (0.04 to 0.45) for stage IV vs stage IA). Most (74%) had systemic therapy, which was more common for advanced stages (adjusted ORs >15.0 for stages III and IV vs stage IA). Few (9%) had radiotherapy. Women generally had systemic therapy (74%), without difference by service accessibility and socioeconomic disadvantage, suggesting equity. However, surgery was less common for residents of the most compared with least remote areas (adjusted OR 0.49 (0.24 to 0.99)); and more common prior to adjustment in the highest versus lowest socioeconomic category (unadjusted OR 1.55 (1.01 to 2.39)), but this elevation did not apply after adjustment (adjusted OR 0.19 (0.63 to 2.25)), with the difference largely explained by stage.
conclusionsHospital-registry data add value for assessing local service delivery. Equivalent survival to Australia-wide and USA survival, and temporal gains after adjusting for stage and other patient characteristics are reassuring. Survival gains may reflect therapeutic benefits of more extensive surgery and improved chemotherapy regimens.
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.