ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs2020
Comparison of Physician Data in Two Data Files Available for Cancer Health Services Research.
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.
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.
- Palliative Care for Advanced Cancer in Medicare Advantage and Physician Networks.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Oncology Organization and Oncologist Networks Under Medicare Advantage Plans.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Provider and Organizational Factors Impacting Routine Cancer Screening Among Older Medicaid Enrollees.Health services research · 2026Article
- Palliative Care Specialist Use Among Medicare Decedents Who Had Poor-Prognosis Cancers.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Trend and Provider- and Organizational-Level Factors Associated With Early Palliative Care Billing Among Patients Diagnosed With Distant-Stage Cancers in 2010-2019 in the United States.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025Article
- Guideline-concordant breast cancer care by patient race and ethnicity accounting for individual-, facility- and area-level characteristics: a SEER-Medicare study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- Multilevel factors associated with inequities in multidisciplinary cancer consultation.Health services research · 2022Article
- Updated Overview of the SEER-Medicare Data: Enhanced Content and Applications.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.