ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023
Comparison of health information exchange data with self-report in measuring cancer screening.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barbershop-based lung health navigation for Black men: A feasibility study.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Measuring the validity of survey questions on breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Correlates of Integrated Human Papillomavirus Vaccination and Cervical Cancer Screening Protection in U.S. Low-Income Women.Vaccines · 2026Article
- A simple guide to the use of Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-squared test, and Kruskal-Wallis test in biostatistics.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Delivering Guideline-Concordant Care for Patients With High-Risk HPV and Normal Cytologic Findings.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Factors associated with mammogram and Papanicolaou testing among Mexican American older women.Women's health (London, England)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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEfficient measurement of the receipt of cancer screening has been attempted with electronic health records (EHRs), but EHRs are commonly implemented within a single health care setting. However, health information exchange (HIE) includes EHR data from multiple health care systems and settings, thereby providing a more population-based measurement approach. In this study, we set out to understand the value of statewide HIE data in comparison to survey self-report (SR) to measure population-based cancer screening.
methodsA statewide survey was conducted among residents in Indiana who had been seen at an ambulatory or inpatient clinical setting in the past year. Measured cancer screening tests included colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer, human papilloma virus (HPV) and Pap tests for cervical cancer, and mammogram for breast cancer. For each screening test, the self-reported response for receipt of the screening (yes/no) and 'time since last screening' were compared with the corresponding information from patient HIE to evaluate the concordance between the two measures.
resultsGwet's AC for HIE and self-report of screening receipt ranged from 0.24-0.73, indicating a fair to substantial concordance. For the time since receipt of last screening test, the Gwet's AC ranged from 0.21-0.90, indicating fair to almost perfect concordance. In comparison with SR data, HIE data provided relatively more additional information about laboratory-based tests: FIT (19% HIE alone vs. 4% SR alone) and HPV tests (27% HIE alone vs. 12% SR alone) and less additional information about procedures: colonoscopy (8% HIE alone vs. 23% SR alone), Pap test (13% HIE alone vs. 19% SR alone), or mammography (9% HIE alone vs. 10% SR alone).
conclusionStudies that use a single data source should consider the type of cancer screening test to choose the optimal data collection method. HIE and self-report both provided unique information in measuring cancer screening, and the most robust measurement approach involves collecting screening information from both HIE and patient self-report.
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.