Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33758549›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2021

A Validated Register-Based Algorithm to Identify Patients Diagnosed with Recurrence of Malignant Melanoma in Denmark.

Linda Aagaard Rasmussen, Henry Jensen, Line Flytkjaer Virgilsen, Lisbet Rosenkrantz Hölmich, Peter Vedsted

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Sex disparities in melanoma stage, recurrence and mortality: A Danish cohort study, 2004 to 2024.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Article
  2. Detecting cancer recurrence in general practice: a Danish national cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  3. Clinical assessment of recurrent cancer: a Danish cohort study in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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.

Linda Aagaard RasmussenResearch Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (CaP), Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9753-2008
Henry JensenResearch Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (CaP), Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.
Line Flytkjaer VirgilsenResearch Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (CaP), Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.
Lisbet Rosenkrantz HölmichDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1983-5222
Peter VedstedResearch Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (CaP), Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2113-5599

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInformation on cancer recurrence is rarely available outside clinical trials. Wide exclusion criteria used in clinical trials tend to limit the generalizability of findings to the entire population of people living beyond a cancer disease. Therefore, population-level evidence is needed. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a register-based algorithm to identify patients diagnosed with recurrence after curative treatment of malignant melanoma. PATIENTS AND

methodsIndicators of recurrence were diagnosis and procedure codes recorded in the Danish National Patient Register and pathology results recorded in the Danish National Pathology Register. Medical records on recurrence status and recurrence date in the Danish Melanoma Database served as the gold standard to assess the accuracy of the algorithm.

resultsThe study included 1747 patients diagnosed with malignant melanoma; 95 (5.4%) were diagnosed with recurrence of malignant melanoma according to the gold standard. The algorithm reached a sensitivity of 93.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.8-97.6), a specificity of 99.2% (95% CI: 98.6-99.5), a positive predictive value of 86.4% (95% CI: 78.2-92.4), and negative predictive value of 99.6% (95% CI: 99.2-99.9). Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was 0.992 (95% CI: 0.989-0.996) for the agreement between the recurrence dates generated by the algorithm and by the gold standard.

conclusionThe algorithm can be used to identify patients diagnosed with recurrence of malignant melanoma and to establish the timing of recurrence. This can generate population-level evidence on disease-free survival and diagnostic pathways for recurrence of malignant melanoma.

Indexed as

algorithmsDenmarkmelanomarecurrenceregistriesvalidation study

Identifiers

PMID33758549
PMCPMC7979354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.