ArticleClinical epidemiology2025
Comparison of Epidemiological Estimates for 19 Cancer Types Using Electronic Health Record Databases in England: An Analysis of CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD Databases with Linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Cancer Registry Data.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- QResearch primary care records linked to national hospital and cancer registry data: a validation study.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Characteristics, treatment and survival of patients with chondrosarcoma in five European countries: a DARWIN EU® cohort study.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare epidemiological estimates of 19 different cancer types in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum and CPRD General Practice Online Database (GOLD) databases against linked secondary data sources in England to understand best use of these data sources for research. Methods: The source population comprised patients in CPRD Aurum or GOLD (separately) who were eligible for linkage to Cancer Registry (CR), Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), and Office for National Statistics (ONS). We selected patients who had an incident cancer diagnosis recorded in ≥1 data sources (CPRD Aurum or GOLD, HES, CR) between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2018. We estimated incidence rates (IR) and counts by cancer type and data source, and survival probability by cancer type among patients with an ONS death record recorded between January 1, 2011 and April 30, 2020. Results: The highest incident case capture resulted from CPRD Aurum or GOLD linked to HES and CR. In the fully linked CPRD Aurum-HES-CR and CPRD GOLD-HES-CR datasets, cancers typically diagnosed and managed in primary care (eg, breast, prostate, and lung) had the highest IRs and more complete case capture compared with other data sources, whereas HES and CR had higher IRs for cancers diagnosed in secondary care settings (eg, gastric, renal, and bladder). Cancers with broad definitions (eg, head and neck) had wider variations in IRs across data sources than cancers with narrower definitions. Survival estimates were generally higher for cancer-related deaths versus all-cause deaths. Conclusion: Findings highlight variation in cancer recording across different data sources. Researchers using CPRD data should assess the benefit of incorporating linked data on a study-by-study basis. For studies of breast, prostate, and lung cancers, CPRD Aurum or GOLD alone may be sufficient; however, linkage to HES and/or CR is recommended where a more complete case capture is required.
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.