Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34940893›Full record

ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2022

[Linkage of claims data with data from epidemiological cancer registries: possibilities and limitations in the German federal states].

Iris Pigeot, Brenda Bongaerts, Andrea Eberle, Alexander Katalinic, Joachim Kieschke, Sabine Luttmann, Martin Meyer, Alice Nennecke, Wolfgang Rathmann, Roland Stabenow and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. [FAIRification of real world data for health research].Pravention und Gesundheitsforderung · 2022
    Review
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

13 authors.

Iris PigeotLeibniz-Institut für Präventionsforschung und Epidemiologie - BIPS, Achterstr. 30, 28359, Bremen, Deutschland. pigeot@leibniz-bips.de.
Brenda BongaertsDeutsches Diabetes-Zentrum (DDZ), Leibniz-Zentrum für Diabetes-Forschung, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Andrea EberleLandeskrebsregister Bremen, Leibniz-Institut für Präventionsforschung und Epidemiologie - BIPS, Bremen, Deutschland.
Alexander KatalinicInstitut für Sozialmedizin und Epidemiologie, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Deutschland.
Joachim KieschkeRegisterstelle, Epidemiologisches Krebsregister Niedersachsen, Oldenburg, Deutschland.
Sabine LuttmannLandeskrebsregister Bremen, Leibniz-Institut für Präventionsforschung und Epidemiologie - BIPS, Bremen, Deutschland.
Martin MeyerBayerisches Landesamt für Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit, Nürnberg, Deutschland.
Alice NenneckeFreie und Hansestadt Hamburg, Behörde für Wissenschaft, Forschung, Gleichstellung und Bezirke, Hamburgisches Krebsregister, Hamburg, Deutschland.
Wolfgang RathmannDeutsches Diabetes-Zentrum (DDZ), Leibniz-Zentrum für Diabetes-Forschung, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Roland StabenowGemeinsames Krebsregister der Länder Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Sachsen-Anhalt und der Freistaaten Sachsen und Thüringen, Berlin, Deutschland.
Heide Wilsdorf-KöhlerGemeinsames Krebsregister der Länder Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Sachsen-Anhalt und der Freistaaten Sachsen und Thüringen, Berlin, Deutschland.
Bianca KollhorstLeibniz-Institut für Präventionsforschung und Epidemiologie - BIPS, Achterstr. 30, 28359, Bremen, Deutschland.
Tammo ReindersLeibniz-Institut für Präventionsforschung und Epidemiologie - BIPS, Achterstr. 30, 28359, Bremen, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, there has been an increasing demand for the reuse of research data in accordance with the so-called FAIR principles. This would allow researchers to conduct projects on a broader data basis and to investigate new research questions by linking different data sources.

objectivesWe explored if nationwide linking of claims data from statutory health insurances (SHI) with data from population-based cancer registries can be used to obtain additional information on cancer that is missing in claims data and to assess the validity of SHI tumour diagnoses. This paper focuses on describing the specific requirements of German federal states for such data linkage. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database GePaRD at the Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS and six cancer registries were used as data sources. The logistically complex direct linkage was compared with a less complex indirect linkage. For this purpose, permission had to be obtained for GePaRD and for each cancer registry from the respective responsible authority.

resultsRegarding the linkage of cancer registry data with GePaRD, the cancer registries showed profound differences in the modalities for data provision, ranging from a complete rejection to an uncomplicated implementation of linkage procedures. DISCUSSION: In Germany, a consistent legal framework is needed to adequately enable the reuse and record linkage of personal health data for research purposes according to the FAIR principles. The new law on the consolidation of cancer registry data could provide a remedy regarding the linkage of cancer registry data with other data sources.

Indexed as

Medical Record LinkageNeoplasmsDatabases, FactualGermanyHumansRegistriesDirect linkageFAIR principlesGePaRDIndirect linkageRecord linkage

Identifiers

PMID34940893
PMCPMC9064838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.