Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19296515›Full record

ArticleCancer2009

Mapping cancer mortality-to-incidence ratios to illustrate racial and sex disparities in a high-risk population.

James R Hébert, Virginie G Daguise, Deborah M Hurley, Rebecca C Wilkerson, Catishia M Mosley, Swann A Adams, Robin Puett, James B Burch, Susan E Steck, Susan W Bolick-Aldrich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effective recruitment strategies and community-based participatory research: community networks program centers' recruitment in cancer prevention studies.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2014
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Implementation During a Pandemic: Findings, Successes, and Lessons Learned from Community Grantees.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

James R HébertSouth Carolina Statewide Cancer Prevention and Control Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, USA. jhebert@sc.edu
Virginie G Daguise
Deborah M Hurley
Rebecca C Wilkerson
Catishia M Mosley
Swann A Adams
Robin Puett
James B Burch
Susan E Steck
Susan W Bolick-Aldrich

Funding

South Carolina Cancer Disparities Community NetworksU01CA114601 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI HEBERT, JAMES R · 2005 to 2010
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS 1 U01 CA114601-01NCI NIH HHS U01 CA114601PHS HHS U55CCU421931
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComparisons of incidence and mortality rates are the metrics used most commonly to define cancer-related racial disparities. In the US, and particularly in South Carolina, these largely disfavor African Americans (AAs). Computed from readily available data sources, the mortality-to-incidence rate ratio (MIR) provides a population-based indicator of survival.

methodsSouth Carolina Central Cancer Registry incidence data and Vital Registry death data were used to construct MIRs. ArcGIS 9.2 mapping software was used to map cancer MIRs by sex and race for 8 Health Regions within South Carolina for all cancers combined and for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, oral, and prostate cancers.

resultsRacial differences in cancer MIRs were observed for both sexes for all cancers combined and for most individual sites. The largest racial differences were observed for female breast, prostate, and oral cancers, and AAs had MIRs nearly twice those of European Americans (EAs).

conclusionsComparing and mapping race- and sex-specific cancer MIRs provides a powerful way to observe the scope of the cancer problem. By using these methods, in the current study, AAs had much higher cancer MIRs compared with EAs for most cancer sites in nearly all regions of South Carolina. Future work must be directed at explaining and addressing the underlying differences in cancer outcomes by region and race. MIR mapping allows for pinpointing areas where future research has the greatest likelihood of identifying the causes of large, persistent, cancer-related disparities. Other regions with access to high-quality data may find it useful to compare MIRs and conduct MIR mapping.

Indexed as

Black or African AmericanWhite PeopleFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHealth SurveysHumansIncidenceMaleNeoplasmsRegistriesSouth Carolina

Identifiers

PMID19296515
PMCPMC2688832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.