ArticleBritish journal of cancer2011
Comparing cancer mortality and GDP health expenditure in England and Wales with other major developed countries from 1979 to 2006.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mortality in the USA, the UK and Other Western Countries, 1989-2015: What Is Wrong With the US?International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation · 2021Article
- UK and Twenty Comparable Countries GDP-Expenditure-on-Health 1980-2013: The Historic and Continued Low Priority of UK Health-Related Expenditure.International journal of health policy and management · 2016Article
- Article
- Neurological deaths of American adults (55-74) and the over 75's by sex compared with 20 Western countries 1989-2010: Cause for concern.Surgical neurology international · 2015Article
- An analysis of National Health Service Trust websites on the occupational backgrounds of 'Non-Executive Directors' on England's Acute Trusts.JRSM open · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer and gross-domestic-product on health expenditure (GDPHE) are critical issues for major developed countries (MDC). Each country's economic input, GDPHE 1980-2005 is contrasted with clinical outputs, cancer mortality rates (CMRs), to compare their efficiency and effectiveness in reducing CMR.
methodsWorld Health Organization's CMR data for baseline years (1979-1981) are compared with 2004-2006 by sex and age. The χ(2)-tests are used to determine differences between MDC. Efficiency is analysed by calculating a ratio of average GDPHE to reduced CMR over the period.
resultsInputs: All the countries GDPHE grew substantially. For the United Kingdom this reached 9.3%, which is below the MDC average (10%). Outputs: CMR fell substantially (>20%) in six of the ten countries. The male average (15-74 years) CMR in England and Wales had been third highest but by 2004-2006 was sixth, a 31% reduction, which was significantly greater than seven other countries. Initially England and Wales female average CMR was the highest of all countries and is now the second highest. There were significantly greater reductions for the 55-64 and 65-74 years old than in seven and four countries, respectively. GDPHE reduced CMR ratios--the average GDPHE:reduced CMR ratio of England and Wales was 1:120, greater than all MDC and double that in four countries.
conclusionComparing GDPHE input with CMR output showed that relatively the NHS achieved more with proportionately less than other MDC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.