ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2025
Predictors of LexisNexis residential history availability and registry data concordance for childhood cancer research.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUse of a commercial database to obtain residential history information in environmental epidemiologic studies of cancer can lead to information bias if data availability varies by individual sociodemographic factors or case status. Residential data that are not missing at random and data that are discordant with cancer registry or birth record address data can impact subsequent exposure assessments. In our study of childhood cancers, we aimed to determine if the availability of residential history information differs by case status or other potential confounders and if there was agreement with cancer registry and birth records address data.
methodsWe worked with LexisNexis to retrieve residential histories for mothers of 3573 childhood cancer cases and 7160 controls born 2000-2015 in Los Angeles and Orange Counties in Southern California. We used linear regression to determine independent predictors of having residential history returned by LexisNexis. We assessed concordance between maternal address at birth and child's address at diagnosis available from registry data and the LexisNexis residential history by comparing street addresses and geocoded coordinates.
resultsMaternal characteristics (birthplace, race and ethnicity, education, insurance provider) and child's case status were associated with the mother having any address returned by LexisNexis. When comparing geocoded coordinates of cases, less than 10% of LexisNexis addresses during the diagnosis year matched cancer registry addresses. Birth record addresses matched LexisNexis-provided addresses for 47% of mothers. CONCLUSION(S): This study elucidates potential implications of using commercial databases such as LexisNexis to reconstruct residential histories and derive exposure measures in cancer case-control studies.
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.