ArticleJournal of registry management2021
Melanoma Tumor Depth Quality Audit: A Nonmatch Analysis.
Article in Journal of registry management, 2021. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Research Program (SRP) received reports from cancer registries in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program concerning the coding of melanoma tumor depth. To address these concerns, SRP developed an algorithm to identify melanoma depth measurement values and conducted a nonmatch analysis. Methods: A nonmatch analysis was conducted on 1,117 cases diagnosed between 2010 and 2017. With the help of Information Management Services, a natural language processing algorithm was developed to identify melanoma tumor depth values along with a gold standard for comparison. A randomly sampled data set was created to compare the algorithm-generated and gold standard values to the originally reported values; these were analyzed using SAS software version 9.4. Analyses were conducted to determine the distribution of nonmatches by demographics and estimate the distribution of nonmatches by the derived T variable according to the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)'s Results: Of the 1,117 cases, 849 cases (76%) were a match between the originally reported values and the gold standard. The majority of cases were found to be in male patients (60%) and non-Hispanic White patients (93%). When comparing derived AJCC-7 T based on the originally reported value to the gold standard, 16% of the original derived AJCC-7 T values were incorrect, with most of the nonmatches resulting in incorrectly coding a case as TX instead of T1. Conclusion: In total, 24% of cases were found to have a discrepancy in the originally recorded values. Decimal errors made up 3% of all cases in this nonmatch analysis. This algorithm may prove to be an essential tool in optimizing registry resources by flagging inconsistencies via automated text review to be adjudicated by registrars, improving their quality of data as needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37260866PMC10198396What 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.