ArticleJournal of registry management2021
Improving Central Cancer Registry Surveillance through Interstate Data Exchange of Electronic Pathology Reports.
Article in Journal of registry management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When a cancer case is diagnosed or treated in one US state, but the patient resides in another, the case report abstract is shared with the central cancer registry in the state of residence through interstate data exchange. However, the records shared may not include pathology reports. Cases diagnosed in another state that would be ascertained only from pathology reports may thus be missed. Utah Cancer Registry received many electronic pathology (e-path) records for nonresident cases that were not being shared. In 2019, Utah Cancer Registry implemented workflow changes and created a novel data extract process to share e-path records in a North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) HL7 format. Utah Cancer Registry shared e-path records for an estimated 2,773 cases with other states for the diagnosis year 2018. Of these cases, both an e-path record and NAACCR-format abstract were shared for 1,709 (61.6%), whereas e-path record only was shared for 1,064 (38.4%). The largest number of e-path records went to 2 adjacent states: Idaho (n = 1,084) and Wyoming (n = 621). Receiving registries reported success importing the files. The e-path data stream resulted in ascertainment of 96 new cases for Idaho and 89 for Wyoming for diagnosis year 2018. Whereas most shared e-path records represented cases already known to the receiving registry, registry staff provided feedback that it was beneficial to obtain the additional documentation. Linking and reviewing the shared e-path records did represent additional workload. Central cancer registries can adopt this process for sharing e-path records via interstate data exchange to support complete case ascertainment in collaborating states.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35380997PMC9009213What 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.