ArticleJournal of global oncology2018
Age-Standardized Mortality Rates in the Caribbean: One Source, Three Different Interpretations.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
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
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.