Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25734390›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015

Estimating the potential survival gains by eliminating socioeconomic and sex inequalities in stage at diagnosis of melanoma.

M J Rutherford, L Ironmonger, N Ormiston-Smith, G A Abel, D C Greenberg, G Lyratzopoulos, P C Lambert

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

M J RutherfordDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
L IronmongerStatistical Information Team, Cancer Research UK, Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London EC1V 4AD, UK.
N Ormiston-SmithStatistical Information Team, Cancer Research UK, Angel Building, 407 St John Street, London EC1V 4AD, UK.
G A AbelCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
D C Greenberg1] Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK [2] National Cancer Registration Service, Public Health England, Eastern Office, Cambridge CB22 3AD, UK.
G Lyratzopoulos1] Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK [2] Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epedimiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
P C Lambert1] Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK [2] Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm SE-171 77, Sweden.
University of Cambridge · GBCancer Research UK · GBKarolinska Institutet · SEUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 13275Cancer Research UK 18180Cancer Research UK 18262Cancer Research UK A18180Cancer Research UK CRUK_A13275Department of Health PDF-2011-04-047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough inequalities in cancer survival are thought to reflect inequalities in stage at diagnosis, little evidence exists about the size of potential survival gains from eliminating inequalities in stage at diagnosis.

methodsWe used data on patients diagnosed with malignant melanoma in the East of England (2006-2010) to estimate the number of deaths that could be postponed by completely eliminating socioeconomic and sex differences in stage at diagnosis after fitting a flexible parametric excess mortality model.

resultsStage was a strong predictor of survival. There were pronounced socioeconomic and sex inequalities in the proportion of patients diagnosed at stages III-IV (12 and 8% for least deprived men and women and 25 and 18% for most deprived men and women, respectively). For an annual cohort of 1025 incident cases in the East of England, eliminating sex and deprivation differences in stage at diagnosis would postpone approximately 24 deaths to beyond 5 years from diagnosis. Using appropriate weighting, the equivalent estimate for England would be around 215 deaths, representing 11% of all deaths observed within 5 years from diagnosis in this population.

conclusionsReducing socioeconomic and sex inequalities in stage at diagnosis would result in substantial reductions in deaths within 5 years of a melanoma diagnosis.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesHealth Status DisparitiesModels, StatisticalSocial ClassAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedMortalityNeoplasm StagingSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID25734390
PMCPMC4385984
OpenAlexW2051755093

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.