Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27753654›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in HIV and AIDS2017

Cancer care disparities in people with HIV in the United States.

Gita Suneja, Anna Coghill

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in HIV and AIDS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cancer in People with HIV.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Deaths Attributable to Cancer in the US Human Immunodeficiency Virus Population During 2001-2015.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gita SunejaaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Duke Global Health Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA bNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Anna Coghill
Duke University · US

Funding

Social and Behavioral Sciences CoreP30AI064518 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Nwora Lance Okeke · 2005 to 2026
$50.5M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI064518
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewCancer is a growing problem in the HIV population, in large part because of aging of HIV-infected people treated with antiretroviral therapy. Overall and cancer-specific survival is worse in HIV-infected cancer patients compared with uninfected patients. One potential reason for the observed survival deficit is differences in cancer treatment. RECENT

findingsRecent population-based data suggest that HIV-infected cancer patients are less likely to receive cancer treatment compared with uninfected patients. This review describes these treatment disparities and their impact on patient outcomes, explores reasons for the disparity and highlights areas for future research. SUMMARY: Cancer is the leading cause of non-AIDS death in HIV-infected individuals. Understanding the underlying cancer treatment disparity between HIV-infected patients and their uninfected counterparts, and developing solutions to address the problem, is of great importance to improve cancer outcomes in this growing patient population.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityHIV InfectionsHumansNeoplasmsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID27753654
PMCPMC6424354
OpenAlexW2529302552

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.