Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32412069›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs2020

Comparison of Physician Data in Two Data Files Available for Cancer Health Services Research.

Dolly P White, Lindsey Enewold, Ann M Geiger, Robert Banks, Joan L Warren

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Urban-rural differences in the age of US physicians.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Updated Overview of the SEER-Medicare Data: Enhanced Content and Applications.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Dolly P WhiteNational Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Science, Healthcare Delivery Program, Bethesda, MD.
Lindsey EnewoldNational Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Science, Healthcare Delivery Program, Bethesda, MD.
Ann M GeigerNational Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Science, Healthcare Delivery Program, Bethesda, MD.
Robert BanksInformation Management Services, Calverton, MD.
Joan L WarrenNational Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Science, Healthcare Delivery Program, Bethesda, MD.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPhysicians are vital to health-care delivery, but assessing their impact on care can be challenging given limited data. Historically, health services researchers have obtained physician characteristics data from the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty (MD-PPAS) file was assessed, as an alternative source of physician data, particularly in the context of cancer health services research.

methodsWe used physician National Provider Identifiers in the MD-PPAS data (2008-2014) to identify physicians in the AMA data current as of July 18, 2016. Within each source, we grouped physicians into six broad specialty groups. Percent agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient (k) were calculated for age, sex, specialty, and practice state.

resultsAmong the 698 202 included physicians, there was excellent agreement for age (percent agreement = 97.7%, k = 0.97) and sex (99.4%, k = 0.99) and good agreement for specialty (86.1%, k = 0.80). Within specialty, using AMA as the reference, agreement was lowest for oncologists (77%). Approximately 85.9% of physicians reported the same practice state in both data sets.

conclusionAlthough AMA data have been commonly used to account for physician-level factors in health services research, MD-PPAS data provide researchers with an alternative option depending on study needs. MD-PPAS data may be optimal if nonphysicians, provider utilization, practice characteristics, and/or temporal changes are of interest. In contrast, the AMA data may be optimal if more granular specialty, physician training, and/or a broader inclusion of physicians is of interest.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchAdultAgedFemaleHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMaleMedicareMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPhysiciansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32412069
PMCPMC7868034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.