ArticleJournal of healthcare engineering2022
Epidemiological Study of Lung Cancer and Clinical Medication in England from 2001 to 2019.
Article in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changing trends in lung cancer disease burden between China and Australia from 1990 to 2019 and its predictions.Thoracic cancer · 2025Article
- Chronic Pulmonary Aspergillosis after Surgical Treatment for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer-An Analysis of Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Retracted: Epidemiological Study of Lung Cancer and Clinical Medication in England from 2001 to 2019.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-10-04Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to explore the epidemiological characteristics and changes of lung cancer and the clinical medication in England from 2001 to 2019. We searched related research using search engine systems such as MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsychINFO. Lung cancer is a serious disease and the prognosis is usually very poor. The overall mortality rate of lung cancer decreased year by year in England from 2001 to 2019, but men, the elderly, and people exposed to polluted air are still more likely to be infected with lung cancer or die as a result, the prevalence and mortality rate of lung cancer in the north of England is significantly higher than that in the south, and the gap is increasing year by year. Lung cancer has changeable risk factors such as quitting smoking and improving air quality, which can effectively reduce the related risk. Paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine are the main drugs for the treatment of lung cancer in England and the treatment of these drugs is beneficial to the survival and quality of life of patients. Men and the elderly are at high risk of lung cancer, which means that lung cancer has obvious gender inequality and age inequality. At the same time, based on the statistical data of lung cancer risk in different regions, it can be concluded that lung cancer also has strong geographical and economic inequality. Changing risk factors and using drugs can effectively reduce the risk of lung cancer and provide effective treatment.
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.