ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Development and Validation of Case-Finding Algorithms for Digestive Cancer in the Spanish Healthcare Database BIFAP.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundelectronic health records (EHRs) are helpful tools in epidemiology despite not being primarily collected for research. In Spain, primary care physicians play a central role and manage patients even in specialized care. All of this introduces variability that may lead to diagnostic inconsistencies. Therefore, data validation studies are crucial, so we aimed to develop and validate case-finding algorithms for digestive cancer in the primary care database BIFAP.
methodsfrom 2001 to 2019, subjects aged 40-89 without a cancer history were included. Case-finding algorithms using diagnostic codes and text-mining were built. We randomly sampled, clustered, and manually reviewed 816 EHRs. Then, positive predictive values (PPVs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for each cancer were computed. Age and sex standardized incidence rates (SIRs) were compared with those reported by the National Cancer Registry (REDECAN).
resultswe identified 95,672 potential cases. After validation, the PPV (95% CI) for hepato-biliary cancer was 87.6% (81.8-93.4), for esophageal cancer, it was 96.2% (93.1-99.2), for pancreatic cancer, it was 89.4% (84.5-94.3), for gastric cancer, it was 92.5% (88.3-96.6), and for colorectal cancer, it was 95.2% (92.1-98.4). The SIRs were comparable to those reported by the REDECAN.
conclusionsthe case-finding algorithms demonstrated high performance, supporting BIFAP as a suitable source of information to conduct epidemiologic studies of digestive cancer.
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.