ArticleHealth information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia2026
Automated data collection in cancer care: State of play among registries in the United Kingdom and Europe.
Article in Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- CancerWatch: accelerating Europe's cancer intelligence.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- The intersection of health information management and clinical registries.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomated clinical coding can use statistical or artificial intelligence-based technology to transform unstructured clinical data into clinical codes. These processes have the potential to enhance the quality and accuracy of data collections, save resources and accelerate research.
objectiveTo evaluate the use of automated clinical coding in the United Kingdom (UK) and European cancer registries.
methodAn online electronic survey was formulated to evaluate the use and user opinion of automation within cancer registries. The survey was distributed to members of the United Kingdom and Ireland Association of Cancer Registry and the European cancer registries. Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2015
resultsTwenty-three of the 117 cancer registries responded to the distributed survey; 15 (12.8%) cancer registries used automation within their registry, mainly in the form of natural language processing or machine learning. Most of the sampled registries (73.3%) used these technologies to automate data collection from pathology reports; 87% of respondents reported automation as efficient; and 26.1% reported improved data quality; 12 (52.1%) of cancer registries still manually checked all the automations; and 17 (74%) respondents believed that the algorithms for difficult tasks require further development.
conclusionVarious computer-based algorithms have been used for automated clinical coding in the UK and European cancer registries in the past few decades; however, to date there are no published data to validate its use. Further research and development of these technologies is needed to ensure external validity and maximise the potential use within other cancer registries globally.Implications for health information management practice:It is clear that while automation can be advantageous in areas of clinical coding, the role of the "human" (HIMs and clinical coders) in coding and classifying registry data, and in overseeing the transition, will be required for some time yet.
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.