Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36890800›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2023

A Validated Register-Based Algorithm to Identify Patients Diagnosed with Recurrence of Surgically Treated Stage I Lung Cancer in Denmark.

Linda Aagaard Rasmussen, Niels Lyhne Christensen, Anne Winther-Larsen, Susanne Oksbjerg Dalton, Line Flytkjær Virgilsen, Henry Jensen, Peter Vedsted

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Detecting cancer recurrence in general practice: a Danish national cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  3. Clinical assessment of recurrent cancer: a Danish cohort study in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  4. Observational
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Linda Aagaard RasmussenResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9753-2008
Niels Lyhne ChristensenDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine and Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7236-5856
Anne Winther-LarsenDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2763-595X
Susanne Oksbjerg DaltonSurvivorship and Inequality in Cancer, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5485-2730
Line Flytkjær VirgilsenResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4877-2697
Henry JensenResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-4040-7334
Peter VedstedResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2113-5599
Aarhus University Hospital · DKZealand University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Recurrence of cancer is not routinely registered in Danish national health registers. This study aimed to develop and validate a register-based algorithm to identify patients diagnosed with recurrent lung cancer and to estimate the accuracy of the identified diagnosis date. Material and Methods: Patients with early-stage lung cancer treated with surgery were included in the study. Recurrence indicators were diagnosis and procedure codes recorded in the Danish National Patient Register and pathology results recorded in the Danish National Pathology Register. Information from CT scans and medical records served as the gold standard to assess the accuracy of the algorithm. Results: The final population consisted of 217 patients; 72 (33%) had recurrence according to the gold standard. The median follow-up time since primary lung cancer diagnosis was 29 months (interquartile interval: 18-46). The algorithm for identifying a recurrence reached a sensitivity of 83.3% (95% CI: 72.7-91.1), a specificity of 93.8% (95% CI: 88.5-97.1), and a positive predictive value of 87.0% (95% CI: 76.7-93.9). The algorithm identified 70% of the recurrences within 60 days of the recurrence date registered by the gold standard method. The positive predictive value of the algorithm decreased to 70% when the algorithm was simulated in a population with a recurrence rate of 15%. Conclusion: The proposed algorithm demonstrated good performance in a population with 33% recurrences over a median of 29 months. It can be used to identify patients diagnosed with recurrent lung cancer, and it may be a valuable tool for future research in this field. However, a lower positive predictive value is seen when applying the algorithm in populations with low recurrence rates.

Indexed as

algorithmsDenmarklung neoplasmsrecurrenceregistriesvalidation study

Identifiers

PMID36890800
PMCPMC9986467
OpenAlexW4322620445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.