ArticleClinical genitourinary cancer2025
Data Sources for Clinical T1 Renal Masses and the Potential for Bias.
Article in Clinical genitourinary 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe rising incidence of early-stage kidney cancer has driven comparative effectiveness research using cancer registry and administrative data. These sources may be biased for small renal masses (SRM), where histologic confirmation prior to treatment is not standard. To better understand these limitations, we compared characteristics of patient populations across three SRM data sources. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe identified patients diagnosed with clinical T1 renal masses from 2019 to 2020 at our institution. Data were obtained from the institutional cancer registry, a prospective clinical trial, and electronic health record (EHR) extraction. Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared across cohorts using chi-squared, Fisher's exact testing, and multivariable regression analysis. Radiologic reports were reviewed for terminology concordance with registry inclusion criteria.
resultsAmong 555 cases, 169 (30.5%) were in the clinical trial, 273 (49.2%) in the cancer registry only, and 113 (20.4%) from EHR extraction only. Active surveillance was more common in the EHR extraction cohort (85%) than in the registry (48%) or trial (33%) (P < .001). The registry and trial cohorts had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (P < .001), and the clinical trial cohort included fewer Hispanic/Latino patients (P = .04) and non-English speakers (P < .01). Registry capture was limited by terminology in radiologic reports, with qualifying terms present in only 15% of EHR cases and 49% of delayed registry entries.
conclusionsCohort composition differed by data source, particularly for patients undergoing active surveillance. Clinicians must recognize potential bias when interpreting findings. Standardized radiologic reporting and revised registry criteria may ensure more complete data for early-stage kidney 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.