ArticleJournal of registry management2025
Modernizing Registry Operations: Implementing File*Pro Automation with Groovy Scripting to Streamline Data Processing in Missouri.
Article in Journal of registry management, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Processing out-of-state (OOS) cancer registry files has historically required time-consuming manual work and programmer intervention. At the Missouri Cancer Registry and Research Center (MCR), File*Pro was integrated into our process at MCR with state-specific groovy configuration files to streamline file preparation, reduce turnaround time, and empower oncology data specialists (ODS) to work independently. This report evaluates the effectiveness of this approach and shares adaptable templates for replication by other registries. Methods: Custom groovy scripts were developed to align OOS files with PrepPlus requirements. These scripts automated default value population, corrected state-specific fields (e.g., county codes), and provided reusable templates. Evaluation metrics included pre- and post-implementation processing times, staff independence, and QA dashboard indicators. Results: From January to April 2025, 180 cases across 9 OOS files were processed with minimal programmer support. County code corrections applied to 3,476 cases from 31 files using the same workflow. ODS staff independently processed up to 13 OOS files in 4 months, saving ~5 days per file by avoiding programmer delays. QA metrics showed a 5-day improvement in turnaround times. Conclusion: File*Pro with groovy configurations offer a scalable, adaptable solution for registries. By reducing reliance on programmers, empowering staff, and accelerating workflows, this approach enhances efficiency and can be replicated in other central registries with minimal training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42110486PMC13151757What 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.