SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2022
A systematic review of methods to estimate colorectal cancer incidence using population-based cancer registries.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluation and forecasting methods to estimate number of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic literature review.Population health metrics · 2025Pooled it
- Statistical methods for measuring trends in colorectal cancer incidence in registries: A systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Incidence, Prevalence, and Survival of Prostate Cancer in the UK.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Demographic and clinical characteristics associated with advanced stage colorectal cancer: a registry-based cohort study in Saudi Arabia.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Declining hip fracture burden in Sweden 1998-2019 and consequences for projections through 2050.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpidemiological studies of incidence play an essential role in quantifying disease burden, resource planning, and informing public health policies. A variety of measures for estimating cancer incidence have been used. Appropriate reporting of incidence calculations is essential to enable clear interpretation. This review uses colorectal cancer (CRC) as an exemplar to summarize and describe variation in commonly employed incidence measures and evaluate the quality of reporting incidence methods.
methodsWe searched four databases for CRC incidence studies published between January 2010 and May 2020. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts. Eligible studies were population-based cancer registry studies evaluating CRC incidence. We extracted data on study characteristics and author-defined criteria for assessing the quality of reporting incidence. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the information.
resultsThis review retrieved 165 relevant articles. The age-standardized incidence rate (ASR) (80%) was the most commonly reported incidence measure, and the 2000 U.S. standard population the most commonly used reference population (39%). Slightly more than half (54%) of the studies reported CRC incidence stratified by anatomical site. The quality of reporting incidence methods was suboptimal. Of all included studies: 45 (27%) failed to report the classification system used to define CRC; 63 (38%) did not report CRC codes; and only 20 (12%) documented excluding certain CRC cases from the numerator. Concerning the denominator estimation: 61% of studies failed to state the source of population data; 24 (15%) indicated census years; 10 (6%) reported the method used to estimate yearly population counts; and only 5 (3%) explicitly explained the population size estimation procedure to calculate the overall average incidence rate. Thirty-three (20%) studies reported the confidence interval for incidence, and only 7 (4%) documented methods for dealing with missing data.
conclusionThis review identified variations in incidence calculation and inadequate reporting of methods. We outlined recommendations to optimize incidence estimation and reporting practices. There is a need to establish clear guidelines for incidence reporting to facilitate assessment of the validity and interpretation of reported incidence.
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.