ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2022
Accuracy of Electronic Medical Record Follow-Up Data for Estimating the Survival Time of Patients With Cancer.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Nursing Records Regarding Decision-Making in Cancer Supportive Care: A Retrospective Study in Japan.Healthcare informatics research · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence research in radiation oncology: a practical guide for the clinician on concepts and methods.BJR open · 2024Review
- The reliability and integrity of overall survival data based on follow-up records only and potential solutions to the challenges.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023Review
- Performance drift in a mortality prediction algorithm among patients with cancer during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Integrated database-based Screening Cohort for Asian Nomadic descendants in China (Scan-China): Insights on prospective ethnicity-focused cancer screening.Epidemiology and health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFor real-world evidence, it is convenient to use routinely collected data from the electronic medical record (EMR) to measure survival outcomes. However, patients can become lost to follow-up, causing incomplete data and biased survival time estimates. We quantified this issue for patients with metastatic cancer seen in an academic health system by comparing survival estimates from EMR data only and from EMR data combined with high-quality cancer registry data. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients diagnosed with metastatic cancer from 2008 to 2014 were included in this retrospective study. Patients who were diagnosed with cancer or received their initial treatment within our system were included in the institutional cancer registry and this study. Overall survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Survival curves were generated in two ways: using EMR follow-up data alone and using EMR data supplemented with data from the Stanford Cancer Registry/California Cancer Registry.
resultsFour thousand seventy-seven patients were included. The median follow-up using EMR + Cancer Registry data was 19.9 months, and the median follow-up in surviving patients was 67.6 months. There were 1,301 deaths recorded in the EMR and 3,140 deaths recorded in the Cancer Registry. The median overall survival from the date of cancer diagnosis using EMR data was 58.7 months (95% CI, 54.2 to 63.2); using EMR + Cancer Registry data, it was 20.8 months (95% CI, 19.6 to 22.3). A similar pattern was seen using the date of first systemic therapy or date of first hospital admission as the baseline date.
conclusionUsing EMR data alone, survival time was overestimated compared with EMR + Cancer Registry data.
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.