Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24097195›Full record

ReviewCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2013

Rural residence and cancer outcomes in the United States: issues and challenges.

Ashley Meilleur, S V Subramanian, Jesse J Plascak, James L Fisher, Electra D Paskett, Elizabeth B Lamont

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 156 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
156citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

156 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

96 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

6 authors.

Ashley MeilleurAuthors' Affiliations: Departments of Health Care Policy and Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Department of Society, Human Development, and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts; and Comprehensive Cancer Center, James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Division of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, and Division of Cancer Control and Prevention, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
S V Subramanian
Jesse J Plascak
James L Fisher
Electra D Paskett
Elizabeth B Lamont

Funding

The Spread of Health Behaviors in the Framingham Heart Study Social NetworkP01AG031093 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CHRISTAKIS, NICHOLAS A · 2008 to 2012
$10.7M
Development of Hierarchical Neighborhood Data Regarding Cancer in the ElderlyR21AG030607 · NIA · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI LAMONT, ELIZABETH B · 2007 to 2008
$499k
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG031093NIA NIH HHS R21 AG030607
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

"Neighborhoods and health" research has shown that area social factors are associated with the health outcomes that patients with cancer experience across the cancer control continuum. To date, most of this research has been focused on the attributes of urban areas that are associated with residents' poor cancer outcomes with less focused on attributes of rural areas that may be associated with the same. Perhaps because there is not yet a consensus in the United States regarding how to define "rural," there is not yet an accepted analytic convention for studying issues of how patients' cancer outcomes may vary according to "rural" as a contextual attribute. The research that exists reports disparate findings and generally treats rural residence as a patient attribute rather than a contextual factor, making it difficult to understand what factors (e.g., unmeasured individual poverty, area social deprivation, area health care scarcity) may be mediating the poor outcomes associated with rural (or non-rural) residence. Here, we review literature regarding the potential importance of rural residence on cancer patients' outcomes in the United States with an eye towards identifying research conventions (i.e., spatial and analytic) that may be useful for future research in this important area.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansNeoplasmsRural PopulationSocial EnvironmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24097195
PMCPMC3814162

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.