ArticleBMC health services research2025
Validity of patient-reported information: agreement rate between patient reports and registry data.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neonatal hypoglycemia screening practices in infants born to mothers without glucose tolerance testing.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Building a Robust Investigator-Initiated Platform: The I-CARE Experience.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Observational
- Evaluating Japan's cancer control activities: Findings from the third cancer patient experience survey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Assessing the accuracy of inflammatory breast cancer self-reported diagnoses through the metastatic breast cancer project from the count me in initiative database.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of patient-reported clinical information, including cancer stage, is not well understood. This study aims to evaluate the agreement between patient-reported survey data and clinical information recorded in hospital-based cancer registries (HBCR).
methodsA total of 730 patients from 166 hospitals in Japan were randomly selected and informed that their survey responses would be validated against HBCR data. Demographic details, including age, sex, cancer stage, and cancer site, were recorded and compared with clinical data from the HBCR. Agreement rates between patients' self-reported demographic and clinical data and the corresponding HBCR records were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with accurate reporting of cancer stage information.
resultsAgreement rates for age, sex, and cancer site were 99.4%, 99.8%, and over 90% across all cancer sites, respectively. The agreement rate for cancer stage reporting was 49.9%. Patients with stage IV cancer had the highest agreement rate at 68.4%. Patients under 75 years of age and those with specific cancer types demonstrated higher odds of reporting data consistent with HBCR records.
conclusionsFor cancer stage data, relying on more credible sources, such as cancer registries, is recommended over patient-reported information to ensure accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.