ArticleBritish journal of cancer2022
Five ways to improve international comparisons of cancer survival: lessons learned from ICBP SURVMARK-2.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cancer survival in sub-Saharan Africa (SURVCAN-3): a population-based study.The Lancet. Global health · 2024Article
- Have the recent advancements in cancer therapy and survival benefitted patients of all age groups across the Nordic countries? NORDCAN survival analyses 2002-2021.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2024Article
- Cancer survival: left truncation and comparison of results from hospital-based cancer registry and population-based cancer registry.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComparisons of population-based cancer survival between countries are important to benchmark the overall effectiveness of cancer management. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) Survmark-2 study aims to compare survival in seven high-income countries across eight cancer sites and explore reasons for the observed differences. A critical aspect in ensuring comparability in the reported survival estimates are similarities in practice across cancer registries. While ICBP Survmark-2 has shown these differences are unlikely to explain the observed differences in cancer-specific survival between countries, it is important to keep in mind potential biases linked to registry practice and understand their likely impact.
methodsBased on experiences gained within ICBP Survmark-2, we have developed a set of recommendations that seek to optimally harmonise cancer registry datasets to improve future benchmarking exercises.
resultsOur recommendations stem from considering the impact on cancer survival estimates in five key areas: (1) the completeness of the registry and the availability of registration sources; (2) the inclusion of death certification as a source of identifying cases; (3) the specification of the date of incidence; (4) the approach to handling multiple primary tumours and (5) the quality of linkage of cases to the deaths register.
conclusionThese recommendations seek to improve comparability whilst maintaining the opportunity to understand and act upon international variations in outcomes among cancer patients.
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.