ArticleClinical epidemiology2025
Refined Algorithm for Identifying Recurrence Among Patients with Non-Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Based on Danish National Health Data Registries.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: In the Danish and other national health registries, colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence is not routinely registered. Algorithms to label patients with recurrence in Denmark exist but produce cohorts with a risk of selection bias due to either pre- or postoperative exclusion criteria. In this study, we aimed to refine and increase the generalizability of an existing registry-based algorithm. Patients and Methods: Data from 5077 patients from an institution and a regional database, encompassing several departments of surgery in Denmark, were retrieved. Patients with non-metastatic CRC were included from 2008 to 2019. Electronic health journal-based recurrence registration was used as reference for the algorithm. Patients were linked with data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database, the Danish National Health Registry, the Danish Cancer Registry, and the Danish Pathology Registry. The algorithm utilized metastasis, chemotherapy, pathology, and local recurrence codes. Refinement of the algorithm included the addition of targeted and radiation therapy codes and including patients who died within 180 days after surgery, along with revising the pathology codes and removing any preoperative exclusion criteria. Performance metrics were evaluated in 10,000 bootstrapped runs, while all-stage and stage-specific cumulative incidence of recurrence and overall survival were estimated. Results: The refined algorithm included more patients than the conventional algorithm (4388 vs 3684) and performed marginally better in terms of sensitivity (0.92 (95% CI 0.89-0.94) vs 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.92)) and specificity (0.97 (95% CI 0.97-0.98) vs 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.96). A significant difference in cumulative incidence of recurrence for UICC stage I was detected between the conventional algorithm and reference, which was not significant when using the refined algorithm. Conclusion: The refined algorithm improves identification of CRC recurrence in national data, enabling broader inclusion and better representation of population subgroups.
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.