Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35977250›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2022

Comparison of Cancer-Related Spending and Mortality Rates in the US vs 21 High-Income Countries.

Ryan D Chow, Elizabeth H Bradley, Cary P Gross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Ryan D ChowMD-PhD Program, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Elizabeth H BradleyVassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York.
Cary P GrossDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Studies using data from before 2011 concluded that the cost of US cancer care is justified given improved outcomes compared with European countries. However, it is unclear whether contemporary US cancer care provides better value than that of other high-income countries. Objective: To assess whether cancer mortality rates in 2020 were lower in countries with higher cancer-related spending, and to estimate across countries the incremental cost per averted cancer death. Design Setting and Participants: Cross-sectional, national-level analysis of 22 high-income countries, assessing the association between cancer care expenditures and age-standardized population-level cancer mortality rates in 2020, with and without adjustment for smoking. In addition, US incremental costs per averted death compared with the other countries were calculated. This study was conducted from September 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Age-standardized population-level cancer mortality rates. Results: In this cross-sectional study of 22 countries, the median cancer mortality rate was 91.4 per 100 000 population (IQR, 84.2-101.6). The US cancer mortality rate was higher than that of 6 other countries (86.3 per 100 000). Median per capita spending in USD for cancer care was $296 (IQR, $222-$348), with the US spending more than any other country ($584). After adjusting for smoking, 9 countries had lower cancer care expenditures and lower mortality rates than the US. Of the remaining 12 countries, the US additionally spent more than $5 million per averted death relative to 4 countries, and between $1 and $5 million per averted death relative to 8 countries. Cancer care expenditures were not associated with cancer mortality rates, with or without adjustment for smoking (Pearson Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of national cancer care expenditures and cancer mortality rates across 22 countries, although the cancer mortality rate in the US was lower than the median, the US spent twice as much on cancer care as the median country. Findings of this study suggest that the US expenditure on cancer care may not be commensurate with improved cancer outcomes.

Indexed as

Health ExpendituresNeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesDeveloped CountriesEuropeIncome

Identifiers

PMID35977250
PMCPMC9142870

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.