ArticlePloS one2020
Cancer morbidity trends and regional differences in England-A Bayesian analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Observational
- Article
- Inequalities in cancer 2-week-wait referrals: a cross-sectional study in English general practice.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Exploring Prostate Cancer Incidence Trends and Age Change in Cancer Registration Areas of Jiangsu Province, China, 2009 to 2019.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Article
- Analysis of spatial and temporal impact differences of birth rate in mainland China.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Epidemiological Study of Lung Cancer and Clinical Medication in England from 2001 to 2019.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Hormone replacement therapy and cancer survival: a longitudinal cohort study: protocol paper.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Socioeconomic disparities in cancer incidence and mortality in England and the impact of age-at-diagnosis on cancer mortality.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reliable modelling of the dynamics of cancer morbidity risk is important, not least due to its significant impact on healthcare and related policies. We identify morbidity trends and regional differences in England for all-cancer and type-specific incidence between 1981 and 2016. We use Bayesian modelling to estimate cancer morbidity incidence at various age, year, gender, and region levels. Our analysis shows increasing trends in most rates and marked regional variations that also appear to intensify through time in most cases. All-cancer rates have increased significantly, with the highest increase in East, North West and North East. The absolute difference between the rates in the highest- and lowest-incidence region, per 100,000 people, has widened from 39 (95% CI 33-45) to 86 (78-94) for females, and from 94 (85-104) to 116 (105-127) for males. Lung cancer incidence for females has shown the highest increase in Yorkshire and the Humber, while for males it has declined in all regions with the highest decrease in London. The gap between the highest- and lowest-incidence region for females has widened from 47 (42-51) to 94 (88-100). Temporal change in in bowel cancer risk is less manifested, with regional heterogeneity also declining. Prostate cancer incidence has increased with the highest increase in London, and the regional gap has expanded from 33 (30-36) to 76 (69-83). For breast cancer incidence the highest increase has occurred in North East, while the regional variation shows a less discernible increase. The analysis reveals that there are important regional differences in the incidence of all-type and type-specific cancers, and that most of these regional differences become more pronounced over time. A significant increase in regional variation has been demonstrated for most types of cancer examined here, except for bowel cancer where differences have narrowed.
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.