ArticleFundamental & clinical pharmacology2026
Linking the NETSARC+ National Sarcoma Database With the SNDS to Evaluate Adjuvant and/or Neoadjuvant Therapy: Report on the Linkage Process and Result (Health Data Hub's DEEPSARC Pilot Project).
Article in Fundamental & clinical pharmacology, 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.
- Overall survival of patients with localized soft tissue sarcoma treated with or without adjuvant chemotherapy (DEEPSARC): a real world nationwide retrospective cohort study in France.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Linking the NETSARC+ National Sarcoma Database With the SNDS to Evaluate Adjuvant and/or Neoadjuvant Therapy: Report on the Linkage Process and Result (Health Data Hub's DEEPSARC Pilot Project).Fundamental & clinical pharmacology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDEEPSARC, one of the first projects running on the Health Data Hub, aimed to identify real-life treatment regimens that could improve overall survival. The project is based on matching the national database of the sarcoma reference network with the SNDS.
objectivesWe aimed to report a transparent description of the linking process and its results.
methodsThe sarcoma database encompasses 33 548 patients matching the selection criteria divided into three subsets: 13507 patients with a complete dataset gathering clinical and pathological data; 5844 patients with clinical data alone; and 14 197 patients with pathological data alone. As no ICD-10 code reliably identifies patients with sarcoma, the subpopulation extracted from the SNDS was extended to 3 million patients who underwent surgery for their cancer. An indirect record linkage process used a combination (called a signature) of so-called chaining variables to uniquely identify a pair of patients from each of the bases. Two metrics (signature robustness and overall quality) were calculated for ease of interpretation.
resultsThe overall matching rate of 73.1% (24 539 pairs out of 33 548 observations), reaching 90.5% in the intersection of the sarcomas databases (with extended data, 12 225 pairs out of 13 507 observations).
conclusionAn optimized and transparent process led to a moderate matching rate but enhanced the confidence in true matching. Representativeness is an issue related to the missing data pattern across the three NETSARC databases. For instance, an individual present only in the RREPS database has a greater probability of not being linked.
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.