Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18231103›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2008

Social inequalities in stage at diagnosis of rectal but not in colonic cancer: a nationwide study.

B L Frederiksen, M Osler, H Harling, Danish Colorectal Cancer Group, T Jørgensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Socio-economic predictors and between-hospital variation in permanent stoma rates after segmental resection of colorectal cancer. A population-based register study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

B L FrederiksenResearch Centre for Prevention and Health, Glostrup University Hospital, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark. birfre02@glo.regionh.dk
M Osler
H Harling
Danish Colorectal Cancer Group
T Jørgensen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated stage at diagnosis in relation to socioeconomic status (SES) among 15 274 patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed in 1996-2004 nationwide in Denmark. The effect of SES on the risk of being diagnosed with distant metastasis was analysed using logistic regression models. A reduction in the risk of being diagnosed with distant metastasis was seen in elderly rectal cancer patients with high income, living in owner-occupied housing and living with a partner. Among younger rectal cancer patients, a reduced risk was seen in those having long education. No social gradient was found among colon cancer patients. The social gradient found in rectal cancer patients was significantly different from the lack of association found among colon cancer patients. There are socioeconomic inequalities in the risk of being diagnosed with distant metastasis of a rectal, but not a colonic, cancer. The different risk profile of these two cancers may reflect differences in symptomatology.

Indexed as

Social ClassAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColonic NeoplasmsDenmarkFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingRectal NeoplasmsRisk

Identifiers

PMID18231103
PMCPMC2243153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.