Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27975046›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

Comparing stage of diagnosis of cervical cancer at presentation in immigrant women and long-term residents of Ontario: a retrospective cohort study.

Teja Voruganti, Rahim Moineddin, Nathaniel Jembere, Laurie Elit, Eva Grunfeld, Aisha K Lofters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Who is Black? The urgency of accurately defining the Black population when conducting health research in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Teja VorugantiInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Voruganti, Moineddin, Grunfeld); Department of Family and Community Medicine (Moineddin, Grunfeld, Lofters), University of Toronto; Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Moineddin, Jembere, Lofters), Toronto, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Elit), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (Grunfeld), Toronto, Ont.; Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Lofters), St. Michaels Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
Rahim MoineddinInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Voruganti, Moineddin, Grunfeld); Department of Family and Community Medicine (Moineddin, Grunfeld, Lofters), University of Toronto; Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Moineddin, Jembere, Lofters), Toronto, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Elit), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (Grunfeld), Toronto, Ont.; Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Lofters), St. Michaels Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
Nathaniel JembereInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Voruganti, Moineddin, Grunfeld); Department of Family and Community Medicine (Moineddin, Grunfeld, Lofters), University of Toronto; Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Moineddin, Jembere, Lofters), Toronto, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Elit), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (Grunfeld), Toronto, Ont.; Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Lofters), St. Michaels Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
Laurie ElitInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Voruganti, Moineddin, Grunfeld); Department of Family and Community Medicine (Moineddin, Grunfeld, Lofters), University of Toronto; Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Moineddin, Jembere, Lofters), Toronto, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Elit), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (Grunfeld), Toronto, Ont.; Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Lofters), St. Michaels Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
Eva GrunfeldInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Voruganti, Moineddin, Grunfeld); Department of Family and Community Medicine (Moineddin, Grunfeld, Lofters), University of Toronto; Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Moineddin, Jembere, Lofters), Toronto, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Elit), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (Grunfeld), Toronto, Ont.; Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Lofters), St. Michaels Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
Aisha K LoftersInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Voruganti, Moineddin, Grunfeld); Department of Family and Community Medicine (Moineddin, Grunfeld, Lofters), University of Toronto; Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Moineddin, Jembere, Lofters), Toronto, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Elit), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (Grunfeld), Toronto, Ont.; Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Lofters), St. Michaels Hospital, Toronto, Ont.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women and 7th most common cancer overall. Cervical cancer is highly preventable with screening. Previous work has shown that immigrants are less likely to undergo screening than nonimmigrants in Ontario, Canada. We examined whether immigrant women are more likely to present with later stage cervical cancer than long-term residents of the province.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective matched cohort study of women with cervical cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2014 using provincial administrative health data. We compared the odds of late-stage diagnosis between immigrants and long-term residents, adjusting for socioeconomic measures, comorbidities and health care use. The outcome of interest was stage of cervical cancer diagnosis, defined as early (stage I) or late (stages II-IV). We confirmed results with a cohort of women with cancer diagnosed between 2007 and 2012.

resultsComplete staging data were available for 218 immigrants and 1348 matched long-term residents. We found no association between immigrant status and stage at diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.39). Factors that did show significant association with late-stage diagnosis were physician characteristics, whether a woman had previously undergone screening and had visited a gynecologist in the past 3 years. These results were echoed in the 2007-2012 cohort (immigrants v. long-term residents, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71-1.20).

interpretationOur results show that being an immigrant is not associated with late-stage diagnosis of cervical cancer in Ontario. Programs broadly aimed at immigrants may require a targeted approach to address higher-risk subgroups.

Identifiers

PMID27975046
PMCPMC5143024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.