ArticleBMC health services research2025
Linking local cancer registries and national death records: a crucial step for accurate survival data in Saudi Arabia.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe absence of a link between cancer registries and governmental mortality databases in Saudi Arabia (SA) poses a significant challenge. This disconnect results in incomplete and inaccurate cancer registry survival data, which is crucial for precise survival estimates. While survival data could be updated through direct contact with cancer patients, their families, or physicians, the more accurate and effective method is through computerized linkage. Unfortunately, this method is not currently utilized in SA.
objectiveThis research aims to assess the knowledge and opinion of the experts in the field of cancer on the importance of having a computerized linkage between cancer registries and Saudi Arabia's National Death Registry, and secondly, to evaluate the effect of the currently used different follow-up methods on five-year survival estimates.
methodsThis study employed a cross-sectional, mixed-methods design. The qualitative component explored experts' opinions on using record linkage to obtain survival data, assessed through a Likert-scale questionnaire. In the quantitative component, currently available methods to obtain survival data from healthcare systems were evaluated using survival analysis and compared to the active follow-up method. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Survival probabilities were compared using the log-rank test.
resultsThe survey outcome revealed that 100% (n = 9) of the experts preferred the proposed computerized linkage method to update cancer survival data. The survival analysis using the healthcare system's mortality data without linkage to the National Death Registry results in an overestimated survival rate of 77.9% vs. 70.2%, with a P-value < 0.001.
conclusionThe study's findings underscore the limitations of the current system. The mortality data from the health systems alone cannot be relied upon, as they only report deaths within their system. To obtain accurate and complete data, trustworthy sources such as the National Death Registry must be utilized. The direct (active) follow-up, while effective, is a resource-intensive process that cannot be used for all cancer patients, even at the hospital level. Therefore, adopting the proposed computerized linkage is recommended.
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.