Observational studyDeutsches Arzteblatt international2026
Mortality Data Collection by Local Authorities Compared to a Cancer Registry.
Observational study in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMortality data, i.e., information on whether individuals are living or dead and the causes of death, provide essential endpoints for the assessment of disease progression in clinical-epidemiological studies. In Germany, mortality data for scientific research are often available only through municipal offices, and rarely from registries. In this study, we collected and compared mortality data from these two sources.
methodsAs part of a study on the early detection of lung cancer and pleural mesothelioma, we collected mortality data on patients recruited in 2014-2015 and on control subjects in the general population. These data were obtained from registration and public health offices and (except for the control subjects) through record linkage with the Cancer Registry North Rhine-Westphalia.
results448 of the 460 patients consented to follow-up via the cancer registry, and 429 consented to municipal-office-based follow up, as did 197 of the 207 control subjects. Much more effort was needed to collect data from municipal offices than through record linkage with the cancer registry. Over a 5-year period, the percentage of deaths recorded was slightly higher when assessed with data from the cancer registry (51.1% versus 49.7%). Further information on the causes of death was more frequently available through the cancer registry (98% versus 84%).
conclusionFollow-up data from the cancer registry were generally more informative, and required less organizational effort to collect, than data from municipal offices. Obtaining data from cancer registries is, therefore, preferable for future cancer studies, although nationwide registry structures for mortality data are still lacking.
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.