Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30326898›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Developing a comorbidity index for comparing cancer outcomes in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.

Lettie Pule, Elizabeth Buckley, Theophile Niyonsenga, David Banham, David Roder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

5 authors.

Lettie PuleSchool of Health Sciences, Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia. maleshwane.pule@mymail.unisa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6114-9317
Elizabeth BuckleySchool of Health Sciences, Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
Theophile NiyonsengaSchool of Health Sciences, Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
David BanhamWardliparingga Aboriginal Research Unit, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
David RoderSchool of Health Sciences, Centre for Population Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComorbidity is known to increase risk of death in cancer patients, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. The means of measuring comorbidity to assess risk of death has not been studied in any depth in Aboriginal patients in Australia. In this study, conventional and customized comorbidity indices were used to investigate effects of comorbidity on cancer survival by Aboriginal status and to determine whether comorbidity explains survival disparities.

methodsA retrospective cohort study was undertaken using linked population-based South Australian Cancer Registry and hospital inpatient data for 777 Aboriginal people diagnosed with primary cancer between 1990 and 2010 and 777 randomly selected non-Aboriginal controls matched by sex, birth year, diagnosis year and tumour type. A customised comorbidity index was developed by examining associations of comorbid conditions with 1-year all-cause mortality within the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal patient groups separately using Cox proportional hazard model, adjusting for age, stage, sex and primary site. The adjusted hazard ratios for comorbid conditions were used as weights for these conditions in index development. The comorbidity index score for combined analyses was the sum of the weights across the comorbid conditions for each case from the two groups.

resultsThe two most prevalent comorbidities in the Aboriginal cohort were "uncomplicated" hypertension (13.5%) and diabetes without complications (10.8%), yet in non-Aboriginal people, the comorbidities were "uncomplicated" hypertension (7.1%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.4%). Higher comorbidity scores were associated with higher all-cause and cancer-specific mortality. The new index showed minor improvements in predictive ability and model fit when compared with three common generic comparison indices. After accounting for the competing risk of other deaths, stage at diagnosis, socioeconomic status, area remoteness and comorbidity, the increased risk of cancer death in Aboriginal people remained.

conclusionsOur new customised index performed at least as well, although not markedly better than the generic indices. We conclude that in broad terms, the generic indices are reasonably effective for adjusting for comorbidity when comparing survival outcomes by Aboriginal status. Irrespective of the index used, comorbidity has a negative impact on cancer-specific survival, but this does not fully explain the lower survival in Aboriginal patients.

Indexed as

ComorbidityAdultAgedAustraliaDiabetes MellitusFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPrevalenceProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentSouth AustraliaAboriginalCancer outcomesCancer survivalComorbidityRacial/ethnic disparityRisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID30326898
PMCPMC6191900

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.