ArticleClinical epidemiology2026
Validity of The Danish National Chronic Myeloid Neoplasia Registry.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validity of The Danish National Chronic Myeloid Neoplasia Registry.Clinical epidemiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) are rare hematological malignancies with long survival, making real-world evidence essential to complement clinical trial data. The Danish National Chronic Myeloid Neoplasia Registry (DMR) captures nearly all MPN patients nationwide, but its validity has not been systematically evaluated. We aimed to validate key clinical variables in the DMR through a nationwide audit. Methods: We sampled DMR entries from 372 persons registered with essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV), primary myelofibrosis (PMF), prefibrotic myelofibrosis (preMF), or unclassifiable MPN (MPN-U) between 2017 and 2021 across all regions of Denmark. We validated eight main variables, including 27 subordinate variables of clinical importance from the DMR, against electronic health records using standardized audit procedures. Positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated. Results: Overall, the DMR showed mostly high PPV and intermediate/high NPV values. PPV was high for core diagnostic, treatment and comorbidity variables: ET (0.91), PV (0.95) and PMF (0.97), date of diagnosis (0.97), splenomegaly (0.98), Conclusion: The DMR demonstrates high validity for several clinically relevant variables and constitutes a reliable source of real-world data in MPN research and therefore, crosslinking registry variables with other data sources may enable robust epidemiological studies and unprecedented precision in real-world evidence for MPN patients. Nevertheless, variable documentation and data quality must be critically assessed to account for changes in data entry practices across time periods.
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.