ArticleBritish journal of cancer2012
Avoidable deaths and random variation in patients' survival.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The benefit of complete resection of contrast enhancing tumor in glioblastoma patients: A population-based study.Neuro-oncology practice · 2023Article
- Article
- Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries.Lancet (London, England) · 2018Article
- Comparison of different approaches to estimating age standardized net survival.BMC medical research methodology · 2015Article
- The impact of eliminating age inequalities in stage at diagnosis on breast cancer survival for older women.British journal of cancer · 2015Article
- Estimating the potential survival gains by eliminating socioeconomic and sex inequalities in stage at diagnosis of melanoma.British journal of cancer · 2015Article
- Socioeconomic inequalities in relative survival of rectal cancer most obvious in stage III.World journal of surgery · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandom error in the numbers of avoidable deaths among cancer patients has not been considered in earlier studies.
methodsMethods to obtain valid confidence intervals (CIs) for numbers of avoidable deaths were developed. The excess mortality rates were estimated for patients diagnosed with colon cancer in five cancer control regions in Finland during 2000-2007 using a relative survival regression model. Numbers of avoidable deaths due to colon cancer and other causes, respectively, were estimated in different scenarios.
resultsAltogether, 4139 and 1335 out of 10 772 patients under 90 years at diagnosis were estimated to have died due to colon cancer and other causes, respectively, during the first 5 years after diagnosis. If all the patients had shared the relative survival of the largest cancer control region to which the country capital belongs, the estimated number of avoidable deaths would have been 146 (95% CI 3-290).
conclusionRandom error in numbers of avoidable deaths, often substantial, can be quantified by realistic error margins, based on appropriate statistical methods.
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.