ArticleBMJ open2020
Impact of loss-to-follow-up on cancer survival estimates for small populations: a simulation study using Hospital-Based Cancer Registries in Japan.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- An international cohort study of breast cancer survival in young women.BJC reports · 2026Article
- Population-based nasopharyngeal carcinoma survival in southern China.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Nationwide trends in childhood cancer incidence and survival in Iran: analysis of national cancer registry data, 2005-2014.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Long term survival in elderly patients with resectable upper tract urothelial carcinoma: analysis of hospital-based cancer registry data in Japan.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- The reliability and integrity of overall survival data based on follow-up records only and potential solutions to the challenges.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023Review
- Survival of 48866 cancer patients: results from Nantong area, China.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Detection of missed deaths in cancer registry data to reduce bias in long-term survival estimation.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Impact of the Management and Proportion of Lost to Follow-Up Cases on Cancer Survival Estimates for Small Population-Based Cancer Registries.Journal of cancer epidemiology · 2022Article
- Identifying Factors Associated with Loss to Follow-up Among Patients Reported to the New York State Cancer Registry.Journal of registry management · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe accuracy of the ascertainment of vital status impacts the validity of cancer survival. This study assesses the potential impact of loss-to-follow-up on survival in Japan, both nationally and in the samples seen at individual hospitals.
designSimulation study SETTING AND
participantsData of patients diagnosed in 2007, provided by the Hospital-Based Cancer Registries of 177 hospitals throughout Japan. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We performed simulations for each cancer site, for sample sizes of 100, 1000 and 8000 patients, and for loss-to-follow-up ranging from 1% to 5%. We estimated the average bias and the variation in bias in survival due to loss-to-follow-up.
resultsThe expected bias was not associated with the sample size (with 5% loss-to-follow-up, about 2.1% for the cohort including all cancers), but a smaller sample size led to more variable bias. Sample sizes of around 100 patients, as may be seen at individual hospitals, had very variable bias: with 5% loss-to-follow-up for all cancers, 25% of samples had a bias of <1.02% and 25% of samples had a bias of > 3.06%.
conclusionSurvival should be interpreted with caution when loss-to-follow-up is a concern, especially for poor-prognosis cancers and for small-area estimates.
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.