Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36531079›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022

Statistical methods for measuring trends in colorectal cancer incidence in registries: A systematic review.

Norah Alsadhan, Alaa Almaiman, Mar Pujades-Rodriguez, Cathy Brennan, Farag Shuweihdi, Sultana A Alhurishi, Robert M West

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Penetrating trauma on the rise- nine-year trends of severe trauma in Sweden.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Norah AlsadhanDepartment of Community Health Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Alaa AlmaimanDepartment of Community Health Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mar Pujades-RodriguezLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Cathy BrennanLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Farag ShuweihdiLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Sultana A AlhurishiDepartment of Community Health Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Robert M WestLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
University of Leeds · GBKing Saud University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Monitoring cancer trends in a population is essential for tracking the disease's burden, allocating resources, and informing public health policies. This review describes variations in commonly employed methods to estimate colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence trends. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in four databases to identify population-based studies reporting CRC incidence trends, published between January 2010 and May 2020. We extracted and described data on methods to estimate trends and assess model validity, and the software used. Results: This review included 145 articles based on studies conducted in five continents. The majority (93%) presented visual summaries of trends combined with absolute, relative, or annual change estimates. Fourteen (10%) articles exclusively calculated the relative change in incidence over a given time interval, presented as the percentage of change in rates. Joinpoint regression analysis was the most commonly used method for assessing incidence trends ( Conclusion: This review identified variation in the calculation of CRC incidence trends and inadequate reporting of model fit statistics. Our findings highlight the need for increasing clarity and transparency in reporting methods to facilitate interpretation, reproduction, and comparison with findings from previous studies.

Indexed as

colorectal cancerincidencemethodspopulation-based studysystematic reviewtrends

Identifiers

PMID36531079
PMCPMC9748480
OpenAlexW4310473990

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.