ArticlePopulation health metrics2017
Methodological choices affect cancer incidence rates: a cohort study.
Article in Population health metrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of methods to estimate colorectal cancer incidence using population-based cancer registries.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncidence rates are fundamental to epidemiology, but their magnitude and interpretation depend on methodological choices. We aimed to examine the extent to which the definition of the study population affects cancer incidence rates.
methodsAll primary cancer diagnoses in Sweden between 1958 and 2010 were identified from the national Cancer Register. Age-standardized and age-specific incidence rates of 29 cancer subtypes between 2000 and 2010 were calculated using four definitions of the study population: persons resident in Sweden 1) based on general population statistics; 2) with no previous subtype-specific cancer diagnosis; 3) with no previous cancer diagnosis except non-melanoma skin cancer; and 4) with no previous cancer diagnosis of any type. We calculated absolute and relative differences between methods.
resultsAge-standardized incidence rates calculated using general population statistics ranged from 6% lower (prostate cancer, incidence rate difference: -13.5/100,000 person-years) to 8% higher (breast cancer in women, incidence rate difference: 10.5/100,000 person-years) than incidence rates based on individuals with no previous subtype-specific cancer diagnosis. Age-standardized incidence rates in persons with no previous cancer of any type were up to 10% lower (bladder cancer in women) than rates in those with no previous subtype-specific cancer diagnosis; however, absolute differences were <5/100,000 person-years for all cancer subtypes.
conclusionsFor some cancer subtypes incidence rates vary depending on the definition of the study population. For these subtypes, standardized incidence ratios calculated using general population statistics could be misleading. Moreover, etiological arguments should be used to inform methodological choices during study design.
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.