Review teams may identify different AE and reach different conclusions on the safety process when using the GTT on identical charts. Tracking true change in the safety level is difficult due to measurement error of the GTT. The results do not encourage further use of the GTT until additional evaluation studies on the measurement properties of the GTT have been conducted.

Non-intercepted prescribing dose errors occurred in <2% of the prescriptions. The parallel CPOE system did not significantly reduce the overall risk of dose errors, and although it reduced the risk of calculation errors, it introduced other errors. Strategies to prevent future prescription errors could usefully focus on integrated computerised systems that can aid dose calculations and reduce transcription errors between databases.

The study showed that adding the appended oncology module to the GTT did not increase its value regarding the evaluation of safety levels. This finding could be due to the measurement error of the GTT. Further studies evaluating the measurement properties and the specific additional modules to the general GTT are needed.

BackgroundProcedure codes in the Danish National Patient Registry are used for administrative purposes and constitute a potentially valuable resource for epidemiological research. The validity of antineoplastic procedure codes has, however, only been evaluated in one study. MethodsWe obtained a random extracted sample of 420 patients in the Southern Region of Denmark with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer and an oncological contact during 2016-2018. Using the medical record as gold standard, we computed the positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity of antineoplastic procedure codes recorded in the Danish National Patient Registry. ResultsWe identified 2243 and 2299 codes of antineoplastic treatments in the registry and in the medical records, respectively. We confirmed 213 of 214 patients with registered therapies in the Danish National Patient Registry received therapy, corresponding to a PPV of 'any registration' of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97 -1.00). Considering single registrations, the overall PPV was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.95), and the overall sensitivity was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.91). There was a strong correlation between number of recorded treatments and treatments administrated.Considering the most frequent single antineoplastic regimens, the PPV ranged from 0.90, (95% CI, 0.87-0.92) for capecitabin to 0.98 (95% CI, 0.95-1.00) for cetuximab, while the sensitivity ranged from 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.87) for FOLFIRI-regimen (5-fluorouracil and irinotecan) to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99) for bevacizumab. Analysis per hospital showed the highest validity of registrations at the University Hospital. ConclusionThe validity of antineoplastic procedure codes in the Danish National Patient Registry is generally high and thus usable for epidemiological research.