ReviewOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2019
Common Pitfalls of Head and Neck Research Using Cancer Registries.
Review in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Volume-outcome relationship in anatomical and non-anatomical liver resections: a rapid systematic review.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Establishment of prognostic nomogram for T1N0M0 glottic squamous cell carcinoma: an SEER database analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023Trial
- Article
- Pediatric Small Renal Masses: Can Tumor Size Predict Histology and the Potential for Nephron-sparing Surgery?The Journal of urology · 2023Article
- Survival differences between women and men in the non-reproductive cancers: Results from a matched analysis of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end-results program.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Prognostic risk factors for initially diagnosed T2N0M0 glottic cancer: competing risk analysis and propensity-score matched cohort analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021Article
- Article
- Evaluating Adjuvant Therapy With Chemoradiation vs Radiation Alone for Patients With HPV-Negative N2a Head and Neck Cancer.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2020Article
- Article
- The primary tumor resection in patients with distant metastatic laryngeal carcinoma.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2020Article
- The current state of glioma data registries.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo highlight common pitfalls observed in scientific research derived from national cancer registries, predominantly the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results Program and the National Cancer Database. DATA SOURCES: Literature review and expert opinion. REVIEW
methodsThis state-of-the-art review consolidates the literature with editorial experiences describing how and why statistically flawed studies are usually rejected for publication, highlighting common errors in submitted articles employing national cancer registries.
conclusionsPitfalls were identified in 2 major areas-design and data analysis. Design pitfalls included unbalanced cohorts, uncontrolled covariates, and flawed oncologic variables. Analytical pitfalls included incorrect application of univariate analyses, inclusion of inaccurate data, and inclusion of stage IVc disease in curative survival analysis. Additional limitations of database studies were identified, including absence of patient-related outcomes, hypothesis-generating vs practice-changing implications, and inability to differentiate between overall survival and disease-specific survival. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Methodological strategies are suggested to ensure careful analytical design and appropriate interpretation. Although national cancer registries provide a wealth of data, researchers must remain vigilant when designing studies and analyzing these data sets. Inherent design flaws raise considerable problems with interpretation; however, when analyzed judiciously, registries can lead to a better understanding of cancer outcomes.
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.