Explore the vast range of titles available.

In December of 2016, a Consensus Conference on unruptured AVM treatment, involving 24 members of the three European societies dealing with the treatment of cerebral AVMs (EANS, ESMINT, and EGKS) was held in Milan, Italy. The panel made the following statements and general recommendations: (1) Brain arteriovenous malformation (AVM) is a complex disease associated with potentially severe natural history; (2) The results of a randomized trial (ARUBA) cannot be applied equally for all unruptured brain arteriovenous malformation (uBAVM) and for all treatment modalities; (3) Considering the multiple treatment modalities available, patients with uBAVMs should be evaluated by an interdisciplinary neurovascular team consisting of neurosurgeons, neurointerventionalists, radiosurgeons, and neurologists experienced in the diagnosis and treatment of brain AVM; (4) Balancing the risk of hemorrhage and the associated restrictions of everyday activities related to untreated unruptured AVMs against the risk of treatment, there are sufficient indications to treat unruptured AVMs grade 1 and 2 (Spetzler–Martin); (5) There may be indications for treating patients with higher grades, based on a case-to-case consensus decision of the experienced team; (6) If treatment is indicated, the primary strategy should be defined by the multidisciplinary team prior to the beginning of the treatment and should aim at complete eradication of the uBAVM; (7) After having considered the pros and cons of a randomized trial vs. a registry, the panel proposed a prospective European Multidisciplinary Registry.

Researchers often analyze cancer registry data to assess for differences in survival among cancer treatments. However, the retrospective, nonrandomized design of these analyses raises questions about study validity. To examine the extent to which comparative effectiveness analyses using observational cancer registry data produce results concordant with those of randomized clinical trials. In this comparative effectiveness study, a total of 141 randomized clinical trials referenced in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines for 8 common solid tumor types were identified. Data on participants within the National Cancer Database (NCDB) diagnosed between 2004 and 2014, matching the eligibility criteria of the randomized clinical trial, were obtained. The present study was conducted from August 1, 2017, to September 10, 2019. The trials included 85 118 patients, and the corresponding NCDB analyses included 1 344 536 patients. Three Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival, including univariable, multivariable, and propensity score-adjusted models. Multivariable and propensity score analyses controlled for potential confounders, including demographic, comorbidity, clinical, treatment, and tumor-related variables. The main outcome was concordance between the results of randomized clinical trials and observational cancer registry data. Hazard ratios with an NCDB analysis were considered concordant if the NDCB HR fell within the 95% CI of the randomized clinical trial HR. An NCDB analysis was considered concordant if both the NCDB and clinical trial P values for survival were nonsignificant (P ≥ .05) or if they were both significant (P < .05) with survival favoring the same treatment arm in the NCDB and in the randomized clinical trial. Analyses using the NCDB-produced HRs for survival were concordant with those of 141 randomized clinical trials in 79 univariable analyses (56%), 98 multivariable analyses (70%), and 90 propensity score models (64%). The NCDB analyses produced P values concordant with randomized clinical trials in 58 univariable analyses (41%), 65 multivariable analyses (46%), and 63 propensity score models (45%). No clinical trial characteristics were associated with concordance between NCDB analyses and randomized clinical trials, including disease site, type of clinical intervention, or severity of cancer. The findings of this study suggest that comparative effectiveness research using cancer registry data often produces survival outcomes discordant with those of randomized clinical trial data. These findings may help provide context for clinicians and policy makers interpreting observational comparative effectiveness research in oncology.

We sought to assess the current status of global data on death registration and to examine several indicators of data completeness and quality. We summarized the availability of death registration data by year and country. Indicators of data quality were assessed for each country and included the timeliness, completeness and coverage of registration and the proportion of deaths assigned to ill-defined causes. At the end of 2003 data on death registration were available from 115 countries, although they were essentially complete for only 64 countries. Coverage of death registration varies from close to 100% in the WHO European Region to less than 10% in the African Region. Only 23 countries have data that are more than 90% complete, where ill-defined causes account for less than 10% of total of causes of death, and where ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes are used. There are 28 countries where less than 70% of the data are complete or where ill-defined codes are assigned to more than 20% of deaths. Twelve high-income countries in western Europe are included among the 55 countries with intermediate-quality data. Few countries have good-quality data on mortality that can be used to adequately support policy development and implementation. There is an urgent need for countries to implement death registration systems, even if only through sample registration, or enhance their existing systems in order to rapidly improve knowledge about the most basic of health statistics: who dies from what?

Background Clinical trials are an essential part of evidence-based medicine. Hence, to ensure transparency and accountability in these clinical trials, policies for registration have been framed with emphasis on mandatory submission of trial elements, specifically outcome measures. As these efforts evolve further, we sought to evaluate the current status of endpoint reporting in clinical trial registries. Methods We reviewed 71 oncology related randomized controlled trials published in three high impact journals. We compared primary (PEP) and non-primary endpoints (NPEP) between the clinical trial protocols of these trials and their corresponding registration in one of the 14 primary global clinical trial registries. A discrepancy was defined as the non-reporting or absence of an endpoint in either the protocol or registry. The primary endpoint was the rate of discrepancy between secondary endpoints in clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registries. Results Of the 71 clinical trials, a discrepancy in PEP was found in only 4 trials (6%). Secondary endpoint (SEP) differences were found in 45 (63%) trials. Among these 45 trials, 36 (80%) had SEPs that were planned in the protocol but not reported in the registry and 19 (42%) had SEPs with endpoints in the registry that were not found in the protocol. The total number of SEPs that were absent from the corresponding registry and protocol were 84 and 29, respectively. Of these endpoints, 48 (57%) and 9 (31%) were included in the published report of these trials. Conclusion Although recent regulations and enhanced procedures have improved the number and quality of clinical trial registrations, inconsistencies regarding endpoint reporting still exist. Though further guidelines for the registration of clinical trials will help, greater efforts to provide a correct, easily accessible, and complete representation of planned endpoints are needed.

Background Verbal autopsy (VA) has been proposed to determine the cause of death (COD) distributions in settings where most deaths occur without medical attention or certification. We develop performance criteria for VA-based COD systems and apply these to the Registrar General of India’s ongoing, nationally-representative Indian Million Death Study (MDS). Methods Performance criteria include a low ill-defined proportion of deaths before old age; reproducibility, including consistency of COD distributions with independent resampling; differences in COD distribution of hospital, home, urban or rural deaths; age-, sex- and time-specific plausibility of specific diseases; stability and repeatability of dual physician coding; and the ability of the mortality classification system to capture a wide range of conditions. Results The introduction of the MDS in India reduced the proportion of ill-defined deaths before age 70 years from 13% to 4%. The cause-specific mortality fractions (CSMFs) at ages 5 to 69 years for independently resampled deaths and the MDS were very similar across 19 disease categories. By contrast, CSMFs at these ages differed between hospital and home deaths and between urban and rural deaths. Thus, reliance mostly on urban or hospital data can distort national estimates of CODs. Age-, sex- and time-specific patterns for various diseases were plausible. Initial physician agreement on COD occurred about two-thirds of the time. The MDS COD classification system was able to capture more eligible records than alternative classification systems. By these metrics, the Indian MDS performs well for deaths prior to age 70 years. The key implication for low- and middle-income countries where medical certification of death remains uncommon is to implement COD surveys that randomly sample all deaths, use simple but high-quality field work with built-in resampling, and use electronic rather than paper systems to expedite field work and coding. Conclusions Simple criteria can evaluate the performance of VA-based COD systems. Despite the misclassification of VA, the MDS demonstrates that national surveys of CODs using VA are an order of magnitude better than the limited COD data previously available.

The objective of this study is to describe the agreement between randomized trial outcome assessment by committee and outcomes entirely identified through public registers. In the CLARICOR trial, 4,372 patients with stable coronary heart disease received a short course of clarithromycin versus placebo and were followed up for 2.6 years. The pertinent hospital records and death certificates had originally been evaluated by the adjudication committee using common definitions of outcomes mapped into a 6-category list. We now mechanically converted the International Classification of Diseases–coded diagnoses of the public registries into the same categories. After cross-tabulation of the committee diagnoses with National Patient Register diagnoses and Register of Causes of Death, we calculate agreement and compare the estimated intervention effects of the 2 data sets. With public register data, the protocol-specified categories were slightly more frequent. Overall agreement was 74% for hospital discharges and 60% for cause of death, but the intervention effect, expressed as a hazard ratio, stayed within 4% of the value originally obtained with the adjudication committee (P≥ .35). Our results show a modest agreement between formal adjudication and outcomes deducible from public registers. However, the estimated intervention effect did not differ noticeably between the 2 data sources. If studies on a wide range of public registers confirm these findings, register outcomes may be considered as a replacement for adjudication committees.

Background Health worker compliance with established best-practice clinical and public health guidelines may be enhanced by customized checklists of care and clinical decision support driven by point-of-care data entry into an electronic health registry. The public health system of Palestine is currently implementing a national electronic registry (eRegistry) for maternal and child health. This trial is embedded in the national implementation and aims to assess the effectiveness of the eRegistry’s interactive checklists and clinical decision support, compared with the existing paper based records, on improving the quality of care for pregnant women. Methods This two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial is conducted in the West Bank, Palestine, and includes 120 clusters (primary healthcare clinics) with an average annual enrollment of 60 pregnancies. The intervention tool is the eRegistry’s interactive checklists and clinical decision support implemented within the District Health Information System 2 (DHIS2) Tracker software, developed and customized for the Palestinian context. The primary outcomes reflect the processes of essential interventions, namely timely and appropriate screening and management of: 1) anemia in pregnancy; 2) hypertension in pregnancy; 3) abnormal fetal growth; 4) and diabetes mellitus in pregnancy. The composite primary health outcome encompasses five conditions representing risk for the mother or baby that could have been detected or prevented by high-quality antenatal care: moderate or severe anemia at admission for labor; severe hypertension at admission for labor; malpresentation at delivery undetected during pregnancy; small for gestational age baby at delivery undetected during pregnancy; and large for gestational age baby at delivery. Primary analysis at the individual level taking the design effect of the clustering into account will be performed as intention-to-treat. Discussion This trial, embedded in the national implementation of the eRegistry in Palestine, allows the assessment of process and health outcomes in a large-scale pragmatic setting. Findings will inform the use of interactive checklists and clinical decision support driven by point-of-care data entry into an eRegistry as a health systems-strengthening approach. Trial registration ISRCTN trial registration number, ISRCTN18008445 . Registered on 6 April 2017.

Background: The European Randomised Study of Prostate Cancer Screening has shown a 21% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years. The causes of death can be misattributed, particularly in elderly men with multiple comorbidities, and therefore accurate assessment of the underlying cause of death is crucial for valid results. To address potential unreliability of end-point assessment, and its possible impact on mortality results, we analysed the study outcome adjudication data in six countries. Methods: Latent class statistical models were formulated to compare the accuracy of individual adjudicators, and to assess whether accuracy differed between the trial arms. We used the model to assess whether correcting for adjudication inaccuracies might modify the study results. Results: There was some heterogeneity in adjudication accuracy of causes of death, but no consistent differential accuracy by trial arm. Correcting the estimated screening effect for misclassification did not alter the estimated mortality effect of screening. Conclusions: Our findings were consistent with earlier reports on the European screening trial. Observer variation, while demonstrably present, is unlikely to have materially biased the main study results. A bias in assigning causes of death that might have explained the mortality reduction by screening can be effectively ruled out.

ObjectivesTo compare the completeness and agreement of prostate cancer data recorded by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) with research-level data specifically abstracted from medical records from the Cluster randomised triAl of prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for Prostate cancer (CAP) trial.DesignCross-sectional comparison study.ParticipantsWe included 1356 men from the CAP trial cohort who were linked to the NCRAS registry.Primary and secondary outcome measuresCompleteness of prostate cancer data in NCRAS and CAP and agreement for tumour, node, metastases (TNM) stage (T1/T2; T3; T4/N1/M1) and Gleason grade (4–6; 7; 8–10), measured by differences in proportions and Cohen’s kappa statistic. Data were also stratified by year and pre-2010 versus post-2010, when NCRAS reporting standards changed.ResultsCompared with CAP, completeness was lower in NCRAS for Gleason grade (41.2% vs 76.7%, difference 35.5, 95% CI 32.1 to 39.0) and TNM stage (29.9% vs 67.6%, difference 37.6, 95% CI 34.1 to 41.1). NCRAS completeness for Gleason grade (pre-2010 vs post-2010 31.69% vs 64%; difference 32.31, 95% CI 26.76 to 37.87) and TNM stage (19.31% vs 55.50%; difference 36.19, 95% CI 30.72 to 41.67) improved over time. Agreement for Gleason grade was high (Cohen’s kappa, κ=0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93), but lower for TNM stage (κ=0.41, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.51) overall. There was a trend towards improved agreement on Gleason grade, but not TNM stage, when comparing pre-2010 and post-2010 data.ConclusionNCRAS case identification was very high; however, data on prostate cancer grade was less complete than CAP, and agreement for TNM stage was modest. Although the completeness of NCRAS data has improved since 2010, the higher completeness rate in CAP demonstrates that gains could potentially be achieved in routine registry data. This study’s findings highlight a need for improved recording of stage and grade data in the source medical records.

Background Standardization of procedures for data abstraction by cancer registries is fundamental for cancer surveillance, clinical and policy decision-making, hospital benchmarking, and research efforts. The objective of the current study was to evaluate adherence to the four components (completeness, comparability, timeliness, and validity) defined by Bray and Parkin that determine registries’ ability to carry out these activities to the hospital-based National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods Tbis study used data from U.S. Cancer Statistics, the official federal cancer statistics and joint effort between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which includes data from National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) to evaluate NCDB completeness between 2016 and 2020. The study evaluated comparability of case identification and coding procedures. It used Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards from 2022 to assess timeliness and validity. Results Completeness was demonstrated with a total of 6,828,507 cases identified within the NCDB, representing 73.7% of all cancer cases nationwide. Comparability was followed using standardized and international guidelines on coding and classification procedures. For timeliness, hospital compliance with timely data submission was 92.7%. Validity criteria for re-abstracting, recording, and reliability procedures across hospitals demonstrated 94.2% compliance. Additionally, data validity was shown by a 99.1% compliance with histologic verification standards, a 93.6% assessment of pathologic synoptic reporting, and a 99.1% internal consistency of staff credentials. Conclusion The NCDB is characterized by a high level of case completeness and comparability with uniform standards for data collection, and by hospitals with high compliance, timely data submission, and high rates of compliance with validity standards for registry and data quality evaluation.