ArticleClinical epidemiology2023
A Validated Algorithm for Register-Based Identification of Patients with Relapse of Clinical Stage I Testicular Cancer.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2023. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The Danish Testicular Cancer (DaTeCa) database aims to monitor and improve quality of care for testicular cancer patients. Relapse data registered in the DaTeCa database rely on manual registration. Currently, some safeguarding against missing registrations is attempted by a non-validated register-based algorithm. However, this algorithm is inaccurate and entails time-consuming medical record reviews. We aimed (1) to validate relapse data as registered in the DaTeCa database, and (2) to develop and validate an improved register-based algorithm identifying patients diagnosed with relapse of clinical stage I testicular cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients registered in the DaTeCa database with clinical stage I testicular cancer from 2013 to 2018 were included. Medical record information on relapse data served as a gold standard. A pre-specified algorithm to identify relapse was tested and optimized on a random sample of 250 patients. Indicators of relapse were obtained from pathology codes in the Danish National Pathology Register and from diagnosis and procedure codes in the Danish National Patient Register. We applied the final algorithm to the remaining study population to validate its performance. Results: Of the 1377 included patients, 284 patients relapsed according to the gold standard during a median follow-up time of 5.9 years. The completeness of relapse data registered in the DaTeCa database was 97.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 95.2-99.1). The algorithm achieved a sensitivity of 99.6% (95% CI: 98.7-100), a specificity of 98.9% (95% CI: 98.2-99.6), and a positive predictive value of 95.9% (95% CI: 93.4-98.4) in the validation cohort (n = 1127, 233 relapses). Conclusion: The registration of relapse data in the DaTeCa database is accurate, confirming the database as a reliable source for ongoing clinical quality assessments. Applying the provided algorithm to the DaTeCa database will optimize the accuracy of relapse data further, decrease time-consuming medical record review and contribute to important future clinical research.
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.