ArticleJAMA network open2025
Incomplete Family History and Meeting Algorithmic Criteria for Genetic Evaluation of Hereditary Cancer.
Article in JAMA network open, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Incomplete electronic health record (EHR) documentation may limit the effectiveness of clinical decision support (CDS) algorithms designed to identify patients eligible for hereditary cancer genetic evaluation. Objectives: To determine whether a CDS algorithm can identify patients who meet criteria for hereditary cancer genetic evaluation when family history data are incompletely documented in the EHR, and to examine whether data missingness is associated with identification patterns across patient subgroups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed EHR data extracted in December 2020 from 2 large US health care systems: University of Utah Health (UHealth) and NYU Langone Health (NYULH). Eligible patients were adults aged 25 to 60 years who visited a primary care clinic within the previous 3 years and had some EHR documentation of cancer family history. Data analysis was conducted in August 2024. Exposures: Patient demographic factors (age, sex, race and ethnicity, and language preference) and cancer family history characteristics (number of cancer history records, number of affected first- and second-degree relatives, relatives with rising mortality cancers, presence of hereditary cancer-related terms in comments, and completeness of documentation). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was meeting at least 1 CDS algorithm criterion for genetic evaluation of hereditary cancer risk based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Missing data patterns were assessed using the Little missing completely at random test, with analyses conducted using complete case analysis and multiple imputation. Results: This study included 157 207 patients: 55 918 from UHealth and 101 289 from NYULH. Their mean (SD) age was 43.5 (9.8) years, and most (65.7%) were female. A total of 5607 UHealth patients (10.0%) and 10 375 NYULH patients (10.2%) met CDS criteria for genetic evaluation. At UHealth, data appeared to be missing completely at random (χ239 = 39.09; P = .47), and complete case compared with multiple imputation analyses yielded similar results. At NYULH, data were not missing completely at random (χ255 = 914.89; P < .001). Compared with multiple imputation, complete case analysis produced different association magnitudes for older age and having relatives with rising mortality cancers, suggesting bias when excluding incomplete records. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the magnitude of the association between incomplete family history documentation and identification of patients eligible for hereditary cancer genetic evaluation depended on whether data were missing randomly or systematically. These findings suggest that health care organizations implementing CDS algorithms should assess their specific missing data patterns and consider tailored approaches to handling incomplete family history information to ensure equitable identification of all patients who could benefit from genetic evaluation services.
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.