ArticleJAMA network open2021
Prevalence of Missing Data in the National Cancer Database and Association With Overall Survival.
Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
81 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Revolutionizing Lung Cancer Detection: A High-Accuracy Machine Learning Framework for Early Diagnosis.BioMed research international · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of Social Determinants of Health and Prostate Cancer Outcomes Among Black and White Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of methods to estimate colorectal cancer incidence using population-based cancer registries.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Racial and ethnic survival disparities in primary liver cancer in the United States: a National Cancer Database propensity score-matched study.Hepatic oncology · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Adjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy versus Chemotherapy and the Impact of Lymph Node Dissection on Survival.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Health Care Analytics Challenges: A 3-Pillar Framework Connecting Analytics Maturity, Workforce Agility, and Technical Enablement.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Article
- Bridging Machine Learning and Clinical Endpoints: A METABRIC-Informed Simulation Study of Missing Data Imputation for RECIST-Based Best Overall Response.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ki-67 as a treatment decision modifier in breast cancer.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Evidence of unreliable data and poor data provenance in clinical prediction model research and clinical practice.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence integrated multi-omics and multimodal studies promote the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: opportunities, challenges, and future perspectives.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer: From Early Detection to Personalized Therapy.Current oncology reports · 2026Review
- Radiation treatment patterns for breast cancer brain metastases: an NCDB analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Trends in Primary- and Metastasis-Directed Radiotherapy Uptake and Survival in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Documentation and Tumour Marker Availability Across Clinical Pathways in Real-World Gastric Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Missingness in the National Cancer Database: A Novel Surrogate for Hepatobiliary Cancer Outcomes.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Multiple imputation for missing values in ordinal variables from cancer registry data when performing Cox proportional hazards regression.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of EsoTIME, a Prognostication Tool for Resected Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Cancer registries are important real-world data sources consisting of data abstraction from the medical record; however, patients with unknown or missing data are underrepresented in studies that use such data sources. Objective: To assess the prevalence of missing data and its association with overall survival among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, all variables within the National Cancer Database were reviewed for missing or unknown values for patients with the 3 most common cancers in the US who received diagnoses from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015. The prevalence of patient records with missing data and the association with overall survival were assessed. Data analysis was performed from February to August 2020. Exposures: Any missing data field within a patient record among 63 variables of interest from more than 130 total variables in the National Cancer Database. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of missing data in the medical records of patients with cancer and associated 2-year overall survival. Results: A total of 1 198 749 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (mean [SD] age, 68.5 [10.9] years; 628 811 men [52.5%]), 2 120 775 patients with breast cancer (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [13.3] years; 2 101 758 women [99.1%]), and 1 158 635 patients with prostate cancer (mean [SD] age, 65.2 [9.0] years; 100% men) were included in the analysis. Among those with non-small cell lung cancer, 851 295 patients (71.0%) were missing data for variables of interest; 2-year overall survival was 33.2% for patients with missing data and 51.6% for patients with complete data (P < .001). Among those with breast cancer, 1 161 096 patients (54.7%) were missing data for variables of interest; 2-year overall survival was 93.2% for patients with missing data and 93.9% for patients with complete data (P < .001). Among those with prostate cancer, 460 167 patients (39.7%) were missing data for variables of interest; 2-year overall survival was 91.0% for patients with missing data and 95.6% for patients with complete data (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that within a large cancer registry-based real-world data source, there was a high prevalence of missing data that were unable to be ascertained from the medical record. The prevalence of missing data among patients with cancer was associated with heterogeneous differences in overall survival. Improvements in documentation and data quality are necessary to make optimal use of real-world data for clinical advancements.
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.