Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36247925›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022

Stark differences in cancer epidemiological data between GLOBOCAN and GBD: Emphasis on oral cancer and wider implications.

K M Fan, J Rimal, P Zhang, N W Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Global Trend of MASH-associated Liver Cancer: A Systematic Analysis From the Global Burden of Disease 2021.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

K M FanSchool of Medicine & Dentistry, Griffith University Queensland, Australia.
J RimalMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University Queensland, Australia.
P ZhangMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University Queensland, Australia.
N W JohnsonSchool of Medicine & Dentistry, Griffith University Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: GLOBOCAN 2020 and Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019 are the two most established global online cancer databases. It is important to examine the differences between the two platforms, to attempt to explain these differences, and to appraise the quality of the data. There are stark differences for lip and oral cancers (LOC) and we attempt to explain these by detailed analysis of ten countries at the extremes of differences. Methods: Age-standardised incidence rates (ASIR) of LOC were obtained from GLOBOCAN 2020 and GBD 2019. Five countries with the greatest and smallest fold differences were selected. A systematic search of PubMed and Embase electronic databases was then performed to identify publications reporting the incidence of LOC in the selected countries between 2015 and 2022. Specifically, data sources of the articles were examined and evaluated. Findings: For LOC, greatest differences were found in Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, China, Pakistan, and Indonesia (group A). In contrast, the United States of America (USA), Brazil, France, Germany, and India (group B) had the least differences between the two databases. Interpretation: It is not surprising that when GLOBOCAN and GBD could not obtain high-quality or accessible LOC data from national or local cancer registries, as in group A, discrepancies would be seen between the two online databases. In contrast, where only minor differences were seen between GLOBOCAN and GBD, as in group B, presumptively due to those countries having well-established cancer registries and healthcare administrative systems, the literature is more consistent. Moreover, many studies have grouped lip and oral cavity with pharynx and categorised outputs as "oral and oropharyngeal cancer" or "oral cavity and pharynx cancer". Those categorisations lacked subsite accuracy and failed to realise that oral cancer and oropharyngeal cancer have completely different etiological factors, pathogeneses, prognosis, and treatment outcomes. Funding: This research received no specific grant or funding from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors, and the authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Indexed as

ASR/ASIR, age-standardised incidence ratesCR, cancer registry/registriesGBD, Global Burden of DiseaseGHDx, Global Health Data ExchangeGlobal Burden of Disease (GBD)Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN)GLOBOCAN, Global Cancer ObservatoryIARC, International Agency for Research on CancerICD-10, 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health ProblemsIHME, Institute for Health Metrics and EvaluationIncidenceLip and oral cavity cancerLMICs, low- and middle-income countriesLOC, lip and oral cavity cancersOral cancerPBCR, population-based cancer registryPNG, Papua New GuineaPRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-AnalysesUSA, United States of America

Identifiers

PMID36247925
PMCPMC9561675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.