ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2018
Discrepancies between Canadian cancer research funding and site-specific cancer burden: a spotlight on ten disease sites.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 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.
- Behind the label: a qualitative study of the self-perceptions of individuals with advanced lung cancer receiving immunotherapy or targeted therapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Are we moving the dial? Canadian health research funding trends for women's health, 2S/LGBTQ + health, sex, or gender considerations.Biology of sex differences · 2023Article
- General practice-based cancer research publications: a bibliometric analysis 2013-2019.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Observational
- Global trends in oncology research: A mixed-methods study of publications and clinical trials from 2010 to 2019.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Cancer, Clinical Trials, and Canada: Our Contribution to Worldwide Randomized Controlled Trials.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021Article
- A Prospective Outcomes Pilot Evaluation of Inspire Now: A Program for People with Lung Cancer.Integrative cancer therapiesObservational
- Enhancing Quality of Life in People With Lung Cancer: An Integrative Program of Yoga, Education, and Group Support.Integrative cancer therapiesObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cancer research is essential in evaluating the safety and effectiveness of emerging cancer treatments, which in turn can lead to ground-breaking advancements in cancer care. Given limited research funding, allocating resources in alignment with societal burden is essential. However, evidence shows that such alignment does not typically occur. The objective of the present study was to provide an updated overview of site-specific cancer research investment in Canada and to explore potential discrepancies between the site-specific burden and the level of research investment. Methods: The 10 cancer sites with the highest mortality in 2015-which included brain, female breast, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, ovary, pancreas, prostate, and uterus-were selected for the analysis. Information about site-specific research investment and cancer burden (raw incidence and mortality) was obtained from the Canadian Cancer Research Survey and Statistics Canada's cansim (the Canadian Socio-Economic Information Management System) respectively. The ratio of site-specific research investment to site-specific burden was used as an indicator of overfunding (ratio > 1) or underfunding (ratio < 1). Results: The 3 cancer sites with the highest research investments were leukemia, prostate, and breast, which together represented 51.3% of 2015 cancer research funding. Conversely, the 3 cancer sites with the lowest investments were uterus, pancreas, and ovary, which together represented 7.8% of 2015 research funding. Relative to site-specific cancer burden, the lung, uterus, and colorectal sites were consistently the most underfunded. Conclusions: Observed discrepancies between cancer burden and research investment indicate that some cancer sites (such as lung, colorectal, and uterus) seem to be underfunded when site-specific incidence and mortality are taken into consideration.
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.