Observational studyBMJ open2022
Accuracy of algorithms to identify patients with a diagnosis of major cancers and cancer-related adverse events in an administrative database: a validation study in an acute care hospital in Japan.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A scoping review of real-world data sources for retrospective oncology analysis in Japan.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Age-Related Differences in Severe Adverse Events During Maintenance Therapy with PARP Inhibitors: A Retrospective Cohort Study in Japanese Patients with Ovarian Cancer.Targeted oncology · 2026Observational
- Clinical Disease Burden in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Type 2 Inflammation in Japan: A Retrospective Database Analysis (EUROS Study).International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Article
- Risk of malignant neoplasms of tacrolimus in kidney transplant patients: a retrospective cohort study conducted using the Japanese National Database of Health Insurance Claims.BMC nephrology · 2025Observational
- Letter to the Editor in response to "Application of a digital quality measure for cancer diagnosis in Epic Cosmos".Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Real-world treatment patterns and survival in extensive stage small-cell lung cancer in Japan.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024Article
- A new electronic medical record database linked to claims data and discharge abstract data (the RWD database) in Japan: Study design and profile.Annals of clinical epidemiology · 2024Article
- Real-world efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in cirrhotic patients in Japan.Journal of gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Longitudinal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the development of mental disorders in preadolescents and adolescents.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesValidation studies in oncology are limited in Japan. This study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of diagnosis and adverse event (AE) definitions for specific cancers in a Japanese health administrative real-world database (RWD). DESIGN AND
settingRetrospective observational validation study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of electronic medical records (EMRs) and claim coding regarding oncology diagnosis and AEs based on medical record review in the RWD. The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) with 95% CIs were calculated.
participantsThe validation cohort included patients with lung (n=2257), breast (n=1121), colorectal (n=1773), ovarian (n=216) and bladder (n=575) cancer who visited the hospital between January 2014 and December 2018, and those with prostate cancer (n=3491) visiting between January 2009 and December 2018, who were identified using EMRs. OUTCOMES: Key outcomes included primary diagnosis, deaths and AEs.
resultsFor primary diagnosis, sensitivity and PPV for the respective cancers were as follows: lung, 100.0% (96.6 to 100.0) and 81.0% (74.9 to 86.2); breast, 100.0% (96.3 to 100.0) and 74.0% (67.3 to 79.9); colorectal, 100.0% (96.6 to 100.0) and 80.5% (74.3 to 85.8); ovarian, 89.8% (77.8 to 96.6) and 75.9% (62.8 to 86.1); bladder, 78.6% (63.2 to 89.7) and 67.3% (52.5 to 0.1); prostate, 100.0% (93.2 to 100.0) and 79.0% (69.7 to 86.5). Sensitivity and PPV for death were as follows: lung, 97.0% (84.2 to 99.9) and 100.0% (84.2 to 100.0); breast, 100.0% (1.3 to 100.0) and 100.0% (1.3 to 100.0); colorectal, 100.0% (28.4 to 100.0) and 100.0% (28.4 to 100.0); ovarian, 100.0% (35.9 to 100.0) and 100.0% (35.9 to 100.0); bladder, 100.0% (9.4-100.0) and 100.0% (9.4 to 100.0); prostate, 75.0% (19.4 to 99.4) and 100.0% (19.4 to 100.0). Overall, PPV tended to be low, with the definition based on International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision alone for AEs.
conclusionDiagnostic accuracy was not so high, and therefore needs to be further investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000039345).
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.