ArticleBMJ open2023
Linking population-based cohorts with cancer registries in LMIC: a case study and lessons learnt in India.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vegetarian diets and cancer risk: pooled analysis of 1.8 million women and men in nine prospective studies on three continents.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn resource-constrained settings, cancer epidemiology research typically relies on self-reported diagnoses. To test a more systematic alternative approach, we assessed the feasibility of linking a cohort with a cancer registry.
settingData linkage was performed between a population-based cohort in Chennai, India, with a local population-based cancer registry.
participantsData set of Centre for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in South-Asia (CARRS) cohort participants (N=11 772) from Chennai was linked with the cancer registry data set for the period 1982-2015 (N=140 986). METHODS AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Match*Pro, a probabilistic record linkage software, was used for computerised linkages followed by manual review of high scoring records. The variables used for linkage included participant name, gender, age, address, Postal Index Number and father's and spouse's name. Registry records between 2010 and 2015 and between 1982 and 2015, respectively, represented incident and all (both incident and prevalent) cases. The extent of agreement between self-reports and registry-based ascertainment was expressed as the proportion of cases found in both data sets among cases identified independently in each source.
resultsThere were 52 self-reported cancer cases among 11 772 cohort participants, but 5 cases were misreported. Of the remaining 47 eligible self-reported cases (incident and prevalent), 37 (79%) were confirmed by registry linkage. Among 29 self-reported incident cancers, 25 (86%) were found in the registry. Registry linkage also identified 24 previously not reported cancers; 12 of those were incident cases. The likelihood of linkage was higher in more recent years (2014-2015).
conclusionsAlthough linkage variables in this study had limited discriminatory power in the absence of a unique identifier, an appreciable proportion of self-reported cases were confirmed in the registry via linkages. More importantly, the linkages also identified many previously unreported cases. These findings offer new insights that can inform future cancer surveillance and research in low-income and middle-income countries.
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.