ArticleThe oncologist2017
Population-Level Differences in Rectal Cancer Survival in Uninsured Patients Are Partially Explained by Differences in Treatment.
Article in The oncologist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Disparities in Surgical Access: A Systematic Literature Review, Conceptual Model, and Evidence Map.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2019Pooled it
- Palliative care for the people without medical insurance in Germany: an empirical ethical approach.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Timing of Surgery and Social Determinants of Health Related to Pathologic Complete Response after Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Adenocarcinoma: Retrospective Study of National Cancer Database.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRectal cancer (RC) is a common malignancy with a substantial mortality but good survival for patients with optimally treated nonmetastatic disease. Lack of insurance may compromise access to care and therefore compromise survival. Here, we examine RC survival by insurance type.
methodsData from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were used to determine 1- to 3-year survival for patients with RC by insurance type (Medicaid, uninsured, other insurance).
resultsPatients with Medicaid or no insurance presented at later stages and were less likely to receive definitive surgery. Overall 3-year survival was higher for patients with other insurance compared with Medicaid-insured (+22.2% units) and uninsured (+18.8% units) patients. Major differences in survival were still observed after adjustment for stage. When patients with stage II and III RC were considered, 3-year survival was higher for patients with other insurance versus those with Medicaid (+16.2% units) and uninsured patients (+12.2% units). However, when the analysis was limited to patients with stage II and III disease who received radiation therapy followed by definitive surgery, the difference decreased to +11.8% units and +7.3% units, respectively, for Medicaid and no insurance.
conclusionFor patients with stage II and III RC, much of the difference in survival between uninsured patients and those with insurance other than Medicaid can be explained by differences in treatment. Further efforts to determine the cause of residual differences as well as efforts to improve access to standard-of-care treatment for uninsured patients may improve population-level survival for RC.
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.