Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36266522›Full record

ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2023

Cancer survival differentials for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Queensland: the impact of remoteness.

S M Cramb, L J Whop, G Garvey, P D Baade

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Patient-reported use of pancreatic enzyme replacement treatment (PERT) in pancreatic cancer in New Zealand and Australia: a cross-sectional survey study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  4. 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.

S M CrambAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation & Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. susanna.cramb@qut.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9041-9531
L J WhopNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4816-2933
G GarveySchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5065-5716
P D BaadeCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8576-8868

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 2008313National Health and Medical Research Council 2009380
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (First Nations population) often have low overall cancer survival, as do all residents of geographically remote areas. This study aimed to quantify the survival disparity between First Nations and other Queenslanders for 12 common cancer types by remoteness areas.

methodsFor all Queensland residents aged 20-89 years diagnosed with a primary invasive cancer during 1997-2016, we ran flexible parametric survival models incorporating age, First Nations status, sex, diagnosis time period, area-level socioeconomic status, remoteness categories and where appropriate, broad cancer type. Three survival measures were predicted: cause-specific survival, survival differences and the comparative survival ratio, each standardised to First Nations peoples' covariate distributions.

resultsThe standardised five-year cause-specific cancer survival was 60% for urban First Nations and 65% for other Queenslanders, while remote residents were 54% (First Nations) and 58% (other). The absolute survival differential between First Nations and other Queenslanders was often similar, regardless of remoteness of residence. The greatest absolute difference in five-year standardised cancer survival was for head and neck cancers, followed by cervical cancer. The five-year comparative survival ratio (First Nations: other Queenslanders) for urban cancer patients was 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.93), similar to outer regional, inner regional and remote areas. The greatest comparative survival differential was for oesophageal cancer.

conclusionFirst Nations' survival inequalities are largely independent of geographical remoteness. It remains a priority to determine the contribution of other potential factors such as the availability of culturally acceptable diagnostic, management and/or support services.

Indexed as

Health Services, IndigenousUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesFemaleHumansQueenslandAboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAustraliaCancerFlexible parametric survivalHealth inequity

Identifiers

PMID36266522
PMCPMC9816203

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.