Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31011507›Full record

ArticleCurrent epidemiology reports2018

Use of age-period-cohort analysis in cancer epidemiology research.

Caitlin C Murphy, Yang Claire Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current epidemiology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Growing old and being old: Emotional well-being across adulthood.Journal of personality and social psychology · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Caitlin C MurphyDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, TX.
Yang Claire YangDepartment of Sociology, Lineberger Cancer Center, and Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.

Funding

UT Southwestern Medical Center Simmons Comprehensive Cancer CenterP30CA142543 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI MELANIE H. COBB · 2010 to 2026
$53.7M
UT Southwestern Center for Translational Medicine (UL1/KL2/TL1)UL1TR001105 · NCATS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI TOTO, ROBERT DANIEL · 2013 to 2017
$24.5M
Research Services CoreP2CHD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KAREN B GUZZO · 2015 to 2026
$9.6M
UT Southwestern Center for Translational Medicine (UL1/KL2/TL1KL2TR001103 · NCATS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI TOTO, ROBERT DANIEL · 2013 to 2017
$4.0M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001103NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001105NCI NIH HHS P30 CA142543NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD050924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewAge-period-cohort (APC) models simultaneously estimate the effects of age - biological process of aging; time period - secular trends that occur in all ages simultaneously; and birth cohort - variation among those born around the same year or from one generation to the next. APC models inform understanding of cancer etiology, natural history, and disparities. We reviewed findings from recent studies (published 2008-2018) examining age, period, and cohort effects and summarized trends in age-standardized rates and age-specific rates by birth cohort. We also described prevalence of cancer risk factors by time period and birth cohort, including obesity, current smoking, human papilloma virus (HPV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV). RECENT

findingsStudies (n=29) used a variety of descriptive analyses and statistical models to document age, period, and cohort trends in cancer-related outcomes. Cohort effects predominated, particularly in breast, bladder, and colorectal cancers, whereas period effects were more variable. No effect of time period was observed in studies of breast, bladder, and oral cavity cancers. Age-specific prevalence of obesity, current smoking, HPV, and HCV also varied by birth cohort, which generally paralleled cancer incidence and mortality rates. SUMMARY: We observed strong cohort effects across multiple cancer types and less consistent evidence supporting the effect of time period. Birth cohort effects point to exposures early in life - or accumulated across the life course - that increase risk of cancer. Birth cohort effects also illustrate the importance of reconsidering the timing and duration of well-established risk factors to identify periods of exposure conferring the greatest risk.

Indexed as

age factorsIncidencerisk factorsSEER programtime factors

Identifiers

PMID31011507
PMCPMC6474378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.