Observational studyBritish journal of cancer2025
Why NHS hospital co-morbidity research may be wrong: how clinical coding fails to identify the impact of diabetes mellitus on cancer survival.
Observational study in British journal of cancer, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSignificant volumes of research rely on secondary care diagnostic coding to identify comorbidities however little is known about its accuracy at a population level or if this influences subsequent analysis.
methodsRetrospective observational study utilising real world data for all cancers, prostate cancer and breast cancer patients diagnosed at Leeds Cancer Centre from 2005 and 2018. Three different data definitions were used to identify patients with diabetes in each cohort: (1) clinical coding alone, (2) HbA1c blood test alone (3) either clinical coding or abnormal HbA1c. Cohort characteristics, diagnosis dates and Cox derived survival was compared across diabetes definitions.
results123,841 cancer patients were identified including 13,964 with diabetes. Clinical coding failed to identify 14.6% of diabetic cancer patients with a temporal misclassification rate of 17.5%. Sole reliance on clinical coding overestimated the negative effect of DM on median survival across all cancers and 3.17 years in breast cancer. DISCUSSION: Clinical coding provides inaccurate diabetes diagnosis date and detection resulting in meaningful differences in analytic outcomes. This supports the use of more detailed comorbidity data definitions. Results casts doubt over research reliant on hospital clinical coding alone and the generalisability of some comorbidity and frailty scoring systems.
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.