Trial reportCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2020
Validation in Alberta of an administrative data algorithm to identify cancer recurrence.
Trial report in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term Mortality in Individuals Diagnosed With Cancer During Pregnancy or Postpartum.JAMA oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Validation of International Classification of Diseases Code-Based Case Definitions of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Associated Inflammatory Arthritis From Administrative Health Data.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Validating a Case Definition for Transgender Adults Using Administrative Data.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Estimated incidence of disruptions to event-free survival from non-metastatic cancers in New South Wales, Australia - a population-wide epidemiological study of linked cancer registry and treatment data.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Can routinely collected administrative data effectively be used to evaluate and validate endpoints used in breast cancer clinical trials? Protocol for a scoping review of the literature.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Fracture rate increases after immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment: a potential new immune related adverse event.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Readily available population-based data about cancer recurrence would improve surveillance and research for women of reproductive age. Methods: We randomly selected 200 women from the Alberta Cancer Registry who had received a cancer diagnosis and who ever had a pregnancy between 2003 and 2012. Administrative data were obtained and linked. Several definitions of recurrence were assessed using various minimum lengths of time between the initial diagnosis date and subsequent diagnoses or treatments, or both. Chart review was used as a "gold standard" definition of recurrence. Results: Chart review identified recurrences in 26 women. The definition that best captured "recurrence" was 2 or more cancer diagnosis codes 10 or more months from the diagnosis date [sensitivity: 80.8%; 95% confidence interval (ci): 60.7% to 93.5%; specificity: 81.0%; 95% ci: 74.4% to 86.6%; positive predictive value: 38.9%; 95% ci: 25.9% to 53.1%; negative predictive value: 96.6%; 95% ci: 92.2% to 98.9%; kappa = 0.42; 95% ci: 0.28 to 0.57]. Conclusions: Recurrence in reproductive-aged women can be captured with moderate validity using administrative data, but should be interpreted with caution.
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.