ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2021
Assessing Cancer History Accuracy in Primary Care Electronic Health Records Through Cancer Registry Linkage.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02936609 (Assessing Community Cancer Care After Insurance ExpanSionS), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 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.
Assessing Community Cancer Care After Insurance ExpanSionS
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Follow the data: tracking data quality and completeness in oncology real-world data.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Epidemiology of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism Across the United States.American journal of hematology · 2026Article
- Identifying Patients with Breast Cancer History Using Epic Electronic Health Record.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026Article
- Real-world evidence on data quality in precision oncology platforms: insights from the Molecular Twin Research Umbrella protocol.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Patient history of cancer in primary care: a closer look among cancer survivors with chronic conditions in federally qualified health centers.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Impacts of pragmatic implementation science in a primary care laboratory.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Applying Machine Learning Techniques to Implementation Science.Online journal of public health informatics · 2024Article
- Reliability of Data Collected via Ecological Momentary Assessment on the Example of FeverApp Registry.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Highlighting the value of Alzheimer's disease-focused registries: lessons learned from cancer surveillance.Frontiers in aging · 2023Article
- Primary and mental health service use in community health center patients before and after cancer diagnosis.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion and access to primary-care based smoking cessation assistance among cancer survivors: an observational cohort study.BMC health services research · 2022Observational
- Identifying and describing cancer survivors: Implications for cancer survivorship research and clinical care.Cancer · 2022Article
- 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany cancer survivors receive primary care in community health centers (CHCs). Cancer history is an important factor to consider in the provision of primary care, yet little is known about the completeness or accuracy of cancer history data contained in CHC electronic health records (EHRs).
methodsWe probabilistically linked EHR data from more than1.5 million adult CHC patients to state cancer registries in California, Oregon, and Washington and estimated measures of agreement (eg, kappa, sensitivity, specificity). We compared demographic and clinical characteristics of cancer patients as estimated by each data source, evaluating distributional differences with absolute standardized mean differences.
resultsA total 74 707 cancer patients were identified between the 2 sources (EHR only, n = 22 730; registry only, n = 23 616; both, n = 28 361). Nearly one-half of cancer patients identified in registries were missing cancer documentation in the EHR. Overall agreement of cancer ascertainment in the EHR vs cancer registries (gold standard) was moderate (kappa = 0.535). Cancer site-specific agreement ranged from substantial (eg, prostate and female breast; kappa > 0.60) to fair (melanoma and cervix; kappa < 0.40). Comparing population characteristics of cancer patients as ascertained from each data source, groups were similar for sex, age, and federal poverty level, but EHR-recorded cases showed greater medical complexity than those ascertained from cancer registries.
conclusionsAgreement between EHR and cancer registry data was moderate and varied by cancer site. These findings suggest the need for strategies to improve capture of cancer history information in CHC EHRs to ensure adequate delivery of care and optimal health outcomes for cancer survivors.
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.