Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25203444›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Factors driving inequality in prostate cancer survival: a population based study.

Richéal M Burns, Linda Sharp, Francis J Sullivan, Sandra E Deady, Frances J Drummond, Ciaran O Neill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Are we there yet? Closing the gap of prostate cancer presentation disparities in Ireland.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Incongruence in treatment decision making is associated with lower health-related quality of life among prostate cancer survivors: results from the PiCTure study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Richéal M BurnsHealth Economic Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Surgical Intervention Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Surgical Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Linda SharpNational Cancer Registry, Cork, Ireland.
Francis J SullivanProstate Cancer Institute, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Sandra E DeadyNational Cancer Registry, Cork, Ireland.
Frances J DrummondNational Cancer Registry, Cork, Ireland.
Ciaran O NeillJ.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAs cancer control strategies have become more successful, issues around survival have become increasingly important to researchers and policy makers. The aim of this study was to examine the role of a range of clinical and socio-demographic variables in explaining variations in survival after a prostate cancer diagnosis, paying particular attention to the role of healthcare provider(s) i.e. private versus public status.

methodsData were extracted from the National Cancer Registry Ireland, for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 1998-2009 (N = 26,183). A series of multivariate Cox and logistic regression models were used to examine the role of healthcare provider and socio-economic status (area-based deprivation) on survival, controlling for age, stage, Gleason grade, marital status and region of residence. Survival was based on all-cause mortality.

resultsOlder individuals who were treated in a private care setting were more likely to have survived than those who had not, when other factors were controlled for. Differences were evident with respect to marital status, region of residence, clinical stage and Gleason grade. The effect of socio-economic status was modified by healthcare provider, such that risk of death was higher in those men of lower socio-economic status treated by public, but not private providers in the Cox models. The logistic models revealed a socio-economic gradient in risk of death overall; the gradient was larger for those treated by public providers compared to those treated by private providers when controlling for a range of other confounding factors.

conclusionThe role of healthcare provider and socio-economic status in survival of men with prostate cancer may give rise to concerns that warrant further investigation.

Indexed as

AdultAgedHealth PersonnelHumansIrelandMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisProportional Hazards ModelsProstatic NeoplasmsRegistries

Identifiers

PMID25203444
PMCPMC4159284

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.