SynthesisBMJ open2019
Statistical projection methods for lung cancer incidence and mortality: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- A New Integrative Modeling Approach for Generating Counterfactual Projections of Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rates in the Absence of Organized Screening in Australia.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Temporal associations between smoking prevalence and smoking-related mortality: a US state-level ecological study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Projection of future gastric cancer incidence and health-care service demand by geographic area in Kanagawa, Japan.Cancer science · 2025Article
- Global, regional, and national prevalence of prostate cancer from 1990 to 2021: a trend and health inequality analyses.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Lung Cancer Prevalence in Virginia: A Spatial Zipcode-Level Analysis via INLA.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Article
- An Automatic Segmentation Method for Lung Tumor Based on Improved Region Growing Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Projections of smoking-related cancer mortality in Australia to 2044.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2022Article
- Cancer incidence and mortality in Australia from 2020 to 2044 and an exploratory analysis of the potential effect of treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic: a statistical modelling study.The Lancet. Public health · 2022Article
- Forecast of peak attainment and imminent decline after 2017 of oral cancer incidence in men in Taiwan.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Trends in lung cancer incidence by age, sex and histology from 2012 to 2025 in Catalonia (Spain).Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Exposure-lag response of smoking prevalence on lung cancer incidence using a distributed lag non-linear model.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Effect of ultrasound-guided pulsed radiofrequency on intercostal neuralgia after lung cancer surgery: A retrospective study.Medicine · 2021Observational
- Forecasting of Lung Cancer Incident Cases at the Small-Area Level in Victoria, Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- How Well Have Projected Lung Cancer Rates Predicted the Actual Observed Rates?Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021Article
- Lung Cancer and Risk Factors in Lebanon: Epidemiology, Temporal Trends, and Comparison to Countries From Different Regions in the World.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify and summarise all studies using statistical methods to project lung cancer incidence or mortality rates more than 5 years into the future. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review.
methodsWe performed a systematic literature search in multiple electronic databases to identify studies published from 1 January 1988 to 14 August 2018, which used statistical methods to project lung cancer incidence and/or mortality rates. Reference lists of relevant articles were checked for additional potentially relevant articles. We developed an organisational framework to classify methods into groups according to the type of data and the statistical models used. Included studies were critically appraised using prespecified criteria.
resultsOne hundred and one studies met the inclusion criteria; six studies used more than one statistical method. The number of studies reporting statistical projections for lung cancer increased substantially over time. Eighty-eight studies used projection methods, which did not incorporate data on smoking in the population, and 16 studies used a method which did incorporate data on smoking. Age-period-cohort models (44 studies) were the most commonly used methods, followed by other generalised linear models (35 studies). The majority of models were developed using observed rates for more than 10 years and used data that were considered to be good quality. A quarter of studies provided comparisons of fitted and observed rates. While validation by withholding the most recent observed data from the model and then comparing the projected and observed rates for the most recent period provides important information on the model's performance, only 12 studies reported doing this.
conclusionThis systematic review provides an up-to-date summary of the statistical methods used in published lung cancer incidence or mortality projections. The assessment of the strengths of existing methods will help researchers to better apply and develop statistical methods for projecting lung cancer rates. Some of the common methods described in this review can be applied to the projection of rates for other cancer types or other non-infectious diseases.
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.