ArticleWorld neurosurgery2020
Identifying Disparities in Care in Treating Glioblastoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Patients Treated at a Safety-net Versus Private Hospital Setting.
Article in World neurosurgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Glioblastoma in young adult patients: contemporary patterns of care and survival in the United States.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- An analysis of the influence of social determinants of health on treatment and survival among adult patients with high-grade glioma in Utah.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- The association of neighborhood-level deprivation with glioblastoma outcomes: a single center cohort study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Association of Health Disparities with Glioblastoma Treatment and Outcomes: Insights from a 15-Year National Cohort (2005-2020).Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Economic income and survival in patients affected by glioblastoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Neuro-oncology practice · 2024Review
- Molecular Targeted Therapies in Glioblastoma Multiforme: A Systematic Overview of Global Trends and Findings.Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Area-level socioeconomic status is positively correlated with glioblastoma incidence and prognosis in the United States.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Effects of postoperative radiotherapy and docetaxel and PD-1 inhibitors on the survival and safety of glioblastoma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Surgical Management of a Massive Frontal Bone Hemangioma: Case Report.Journal of neurological surgery reports · 2022Article
- Racial/ethnic disparities in treatment pattern and time to treatment for adults with glioblastoma in the US.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2021Article
- Overcoming Barriers to Radiation Oncology Access in Low-Resource Settings in the United States.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients of lower socioeconomic status (SES) may experience barriers to their oncologic care, but current data conflict over whether SES affects the prognosis of patients with glioblastoma (GB).
objectiveWe sought to determine whether SES disparities impaired delivery of neuro-oncologic care and affected the prognosis of GB patients.
methodsThe records of GB patients treated from 2010 to 2014 at a safety-net hospital (SNH) or private hospital (PH), both served by 1 academic medical institution, were retrospectively reviewed and compared. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsA total of 55 SNH and 39 PH GB patients were analyzed with median 11-month follow-up. SNH patients were predominantly Hispanic, low income, enrolled in Medicaid, were less likely to receive radiation (89% vs. 100%), took longer to start radiation (41 vs. 29 days), and were less likely to complete radiation treatment (80% vs. 95%). Concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide use were also lower (85% vs. 94% and 60% vs. 71%, respectively). OS and PFS were not significantly different (15 vs. 16 months and 8 vs. 11 months, respectively). On multivariate analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy and RT completion predicted for better OS, whereas hospital type, income, and insurance did not.
conclusionAlthough GB patients at our SNH received less adjuvant treatment compared with PH, outcomes were similar. Access to multidisciplinary care staffed by academic physicians may play an important role in overcoming socioeconomic barriers to treatment availability and quality at SNHs.
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.