Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31462469›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Statistical projection methods for lung cancer incidence and mortality: a systematic review.

Xue Qin Yu, Qingwei Luo, Suzanne Hughes, Stephen Wade, Michael Caruana, Karen Canfell, Dianne L O'Connell

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Projections of smoking-related cancer mortality in Australia to 2044.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Forecasting of Lung Cancer Incident Cases at the Small-Area Level in Victoria, Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  15. How Well Have Projected Lung Cancer Rates Predicted the Actual Observed Rates?Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021
    Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

Xue Qin Yu *Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8638-7979
Qingwei Luo *Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia qingweil@nswcc.org.au.ORCID 0000-0002-8902-6869
Suzanne HughesCancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Stephen WadeCancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael CaruanaCancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Karen CanfellCancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Dianne L O'ConnellCancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Models, StatisticalHumansIncidenceLung NeoplasmsResearch DesignSmokinglung cancerstatistical modellingstatistical projectionssystematic reviewtobacco smoking

Identifiers

PMID31462469
PMCPMC6720154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.