ArticleCancer health disparities2020
Cervical cancer outcome by type of health care facilities: National Cancer Database, 2004-2015.
Article in Cancer health disparities, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2015 was analyzed to identify cervical cancer outcomes associated with demographic and clinical characteristics measured by types of facility. Chi-Square tests were used to compare proportions and logistic regression to determine factors associated with cervical cancer outcomes. Women treated at Academic/Research Programs (ARPs) were younger at diagnosis, more likely black, less educated and more in Stage 2, lived further away from treatment facilities, had less comorbidities and better 5-year survival, and were more likely to be alive at 30 and 90 days after surgery compared to other programs. Women treated at Community Cancer Programs were more likely 75 and older at diagnosis, more likely to receive radiation treatment and more in Stage 4, more living in rural areas and less than 10 miles from the facility, and had more comorbidities, and lower 5-year survival compared to other programs. Women treated at Comprehensive Community Cancer Programs were more likely white and educated, had more private insurance, and underwent surgery. Women treated at Integrated Network Cancer Programs were more likely to live in urban, south region, and in Stage 1B2, had more surgery and one comorbidity, and died fewer than 30 days after surgery. The type of facility and treatment had varied effects on mortality and 5-year survival. Considering the different cervical cancer outcomes from different health care facilities, further research is needed to identify what factors influence women to choose a health care facility for their treatment and how this choice can affect different health outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34027312PMC8136613W2947001219What 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.