Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30084703›Full record

ArticleJournal of global oncology2018

Age-Standardized Mortality Rates in the Caribbean: One Source, Three Different Interpretations.

Nicholas G Wolf, Camille Morgan, John S Flanigan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Nicholas G WolfCenter for Global Health, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
Camille MorganCenter for Global Health, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
John S FlaniganCenter for Global Health, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose A recent publication in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report ( MMWR) provided the opportunity to calculate differences in published cancer mortality estimates for Caribbean jurisdictions from three organizations: MMWR, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. This comparison study serves to educate end users of these data. Methods We downloaded the publicly available cancer mortality estimates for 15 jurisdictions and the United States from the three organizations. We compared reported age-standardized mortality rates for each jurisdiction and calculated the range among estimates for each jurisdiction. We repeated this analysis after applying the same world population standard to all estimates. Results For males, the ranges of the Caribbean estimates were between 49% (Grenada and Trinidad) and 201% (US Virgin Islands) of the MMWR value, with an average of 88%. For females, the ranges were between 15% (Trinidad) and 171% (US Virgin Islands) of the MMWR value, with an average of 64%. After all estimates were compared using the same population standard, the ranges of the Caribbean estimates for males were between 6% (Grenada) and 111% (US Virgin Islands) of the MMWR value, with an average of 34%. For females, the ranges were between 7% (Grenada) and 97% (US Virgin Islands), with an average of 28%. Conclusion The use of different standard populations complicates comparisons across organizations. Data modeling does not completely compensate for quality of source data, as our analysis demonstrated by the differences in mortality rates despite the good quality of the vital registration in the Caribbean.

Indexed as

Age FactorsMorbidityCaribbean RegionFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID30084703
PMCPMC6223506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.