ArticleCancer epidemiology2016
Cancer incidence trends using American Community Survey estimates are not consistent with SEER for small populations.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, 2016. 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.
- Cancer incidence among Armenians in California.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmerican Community Survey (ACS) estimates are said to be uncertain for small areas and small population groups. The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database uses a decennial census extrapolation methodology to yield population estimates used by cancer researchers across the country. We compared metropolitan Detroit cancer incidence estimates calculated using ACS data to those using SEER population estimates, which we considered to be the gold standard.
methodsWe generated age-adjusted cancer incidence rate estimates for 1-year, 3-year and 5-year time periods (2005-2010) using SEER and ACS population estimates for four racial/ethnic groups by sex and cancer type for residents in the tri-county Detroit area. We calculated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and compared trends.
resultsWhile the IRRs were rarely significant, there were significant differences in incidence rate estimates for Hispanic males. Additionally, interpretation of trends varied by the estimate source: the ACS-based lung cancer incidence rate estimate for Hispanic females increased from 70.59 (95% CI 44.85, 110.67) to 86.13 (95% CI 54.83, 132.44) per 100,000 women from 2007 to 2010, while the SEER incidence rate estimate decreased from 80.76 (95% CI 53.36, 119.24) to 73.54 (95% CI 49.24, 106.62).
conclusionsInconsistencies were found when comparing incidence rate estimates for small population groups using the two population estimate sources. This finding has potential implications for health disparities research.
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.