ReviewJournal of epidemiology2018
Critical Points for Interpreting Patients' Survival Rate Using Cancer Registries: A Literature Review.
Review in Journal of epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Microbiome on Breast Cancer and Regulatory Strategies.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Trends in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation survival using population-based descriptive epidemiology method: analysis of national transplant registry data.Bone marrow transplantation · 2024Article
- Using administrative healthcare data to evaluate drug repurposing opportunities for cancer: the possibility of using beta-blockers to treat breast cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Role of RHOC in evaluating an adverse prognosis in patients with glioma and its potential prognostic value.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2021Article
- Hemodialysis vs Peritoneal Dialysis: Comparison of Net Survival in Incident Patients on Chronic Dialysis in Colombia.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2021Article
- Article
- Assessment of NETest Clinical Utility in a U.S. Registry-Based Study.The oncologist · 2019Observational
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
backgroundSurvival rate is used to develop cancer control plans. However, there are limitations and biases when interpreting patient survival rate data. This study aimed to identify and account for potential biases and/or limitations on estimating survival rate to enable more effective control of cancer.
methodsThe authors searched PubMed from December 2010 to December 2015 for articles that investigated or described biases in estimating patient survival using cancer registries. Articles that only described the tendency of survival rate and investigated relationships between patient characteristics, treatment, and survival rate were excluded.
resultsIn total, 50 articles met the inclusion criteria. The identified potential biases were categorized into three areas, as follows: 1) the quality of registry data (eg, the completeness of cancer patients, accuracy of data, and follow-up rates); 2) limitations related to estimated methods of survival rates (eg, misclassification of cause of death for cause-specific survival rate or a lack of comparability of background mortality for relative survival rate); and 3) the comparability of survival rates among different groups (eg, age-adjustment or patients with multiple cancers).
conclusionWe concluded that survival rate can be suitable for answering questions related to health policy and research. Several factors should be considered when interpreting survival rates estimated using cancer registries.
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.