ArticleJournal of oncology practice2015
Comparing Breast Cancer Outcomes Between Medicaid and the Ohio Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.
Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patterns of care and health care resource use among Medicaid-enrolled women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023Article
- Insurance Status Predicts Survival in Women with Breast Cancer: Results of Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Program in California.Annals of surgical oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare outcomes between women enrolling in Medicaid after being diagnosed with breast cancer and those referred to Medicaid through the Ohio Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (BCCEDP).
methodsUsing linked data from the 2002 to 2008 Ohio Cancer Incidence Surveillance System, Medicaid, the BCCEDP database, and Ohio death certificates (through 2010), we identified women 40 to 64 years of age diagnosed with incident invasive breast cancer during the study years and enrolled in Medicaid 3 months before or after cancer diagnosis. We compared the following outcomes across BCCEDP one-time and repeat participants and nonparticipants: (1) cancer stage at diagnosis, (2) treatment delays, (3) receipt of standard treatment, and (4) survival. We conducted multivariable logistic regression and survival analysis to examine the association between BCCEDP participation and the outcomes of interest, controlling for potential confounders.
resultsWe identified 427 and 654 BCCEDP participants and nonparticipants, respectively; 28.5% of BCCEDP women were repeat participants. Compared with nonparticipants, BCCEDP one-time and repeat participants were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with advanced-stage cancer (one-time: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.85; repeat: AOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.52), or experience delays in treatment initiation (one-time: adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.51; repeat: AHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.72). In addition, although we observed no difference in receipt of standard cancer treatment, BCCEDP participants experienced cancer-specific and overall survival benefits.
conclusionCompared with nonparticipants, BCCEDP participants experienced earlier breast cancer stage at diagnosis, shorter time to treatment initiation, and survival benefits.
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.