ArticleCancers2022
Online Crowdfunding for Urologic Cancer Care.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- "…When it came to sensitive information, we made edits, and we took it back": qualitatively exploring the role responsibilities taken on by Canadians who crowdfund on behalf of someone else from a privacy perspective.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- GoFundMe®: Crowdfunding Among Young Adult Patients With Cancer.Clinical journal of oncology nursing · 2025Article
- Impact of Medical Conditions and Area Deprivation on Fundraising Success in Online Crowdfunding: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Analysis of Online Crowdfunding Among Patients Pursuing Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery in the United States.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
- Financial toxicity in cancer palliative care in India: Addressing existence and beyond - Seeking remedies for a balanced financial journey.Ecancermedicalscience · 2024Article
- The Impact on Urology Residents' Learning of Social Media and Web Technologies after the Pandemic: A Step Forward through the Sharing of Knowledge.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 9 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: we aimed to characterize the financial needs expressed through online crowdfunding for urologic cancers. Methods: the data used in this study came from the online crowdfunding platform GoFundMe.com. Using an automated software method, we extracted data for campaigns related to urologic cancers. Subsequently, four independent investigators reviewed all extracted data on prostate, bladder, kidney and testicular cancer. We analyzed campaigns’ basic characteristics, goals, fundraising, type of treatment and factors associated with successful campaigns. Results: in total, we identified 2126 individual campaigns, which were related to direct treatment costs (34%), living expenses (17%) or both (48%). Median fundraising amounts were greatest for testicular cancer. Campaigns for both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) (median $11,000) or CAM alone (median $8527) achieved higher fundraising totals compared with those for conventional treatments alone (median $5362) (p < 0.01). The number of social media shares was independently associated with campaign success and highest quartile of fundraising. Conclusions: using an automated web-based approach, we identified and characterized online crowdfunding for urologic cancer care. These findings indicated a diverse range of patient needs related to urologic care and factors related to campaigns’ success.
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.