Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35296282›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2022

Mapping disadvantage: identifying inequities in functional outcomes for prostate cancer survivors based on geography.

Kendrick Koo, Nathan Papa, Melanie Evans, Michael Jefford, Maarten IJzerman, Victoria White, Sue M Evans, Eli Ristevski, Jon Emery, Jeremy Millar

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Kendrick KooRadiation Oncology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia. kendrick.koo@unimelb.edu.au.
Nathan PapaSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Melanie EvansSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael JeffordSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Maarten IJzermanSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5788-5805
Victoria WhiteSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6619-8484
Sue M EvansSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Eli RistevskiMonash Rural Health - Warragul, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Jon EmeryCentre for Cancer Research, Cancer Health Services Research, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jeremy MillarRadiation Oncology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Monash University · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUAlfred Health · AUCancer Council Victoria · AUDeakin University · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer is the most common internal malignancy in Australian men, and although most patients have good survival outcomes, treatment toxicities can impair function, leading to diminished quality of life for prostate cancer survivors. Socioeconomic disadvantage and geographical remoteness have been shown to be related to worse oncologic outcomes, and it is expected that they would similarly influence functional outcomes in prostate cancer.

methodsUsing data from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (n = 10,924), we investigated functional outcomes as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) following prostate cancer treatment, focusing on associations with socioeconomic status and geographical remoteness and controlling for clinicopathologic characteristics. A single composite score was developed from the five separate EPIC-26 domains for use in geo-mapping.

resultsA total of 7690 patients had complete EPIC-26 data, allowing mapping hotspots of poor function using our composite score. These hotspots were observed to relate to areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. Significant heterogeneity in outcomes was seen in urban areas, with hotspots of good and poor function. Both socioeconomic disadvantage and geographical remoteness were found to predict for worse functional outcomes, although only the former is significant on multivariate analysis.

conclusionsGeo-mapping of functional outcomes in prostate cancer has the potential to guide health care service provision and planning. A nuanced policy approach is required so as not to miss disadvantaged patients who live in urban areas. We have demonstrated the potential of geo-mapping to visualise population-level outcomes, potentially allowing targeted interventions to address inequities in quality of care.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsProstatic NeoplasmsAustraliaGeographyHumansMaleProstateQuality of LifeFunctional outcomesGeomappingHealth policyProstate cancerQuality of lifeSocioeconomic disadvantageSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID35296282
PMCPMC8928643
OpenAlexW4220932705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.