ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2021
Social determinants of health and survival on Brazilian patients with glioblastoma: a retrospective analysis of a large populational database.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2021. 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Socioeconomic status as a determinant of survival in glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of copper overload on mitochondrial parameters in GBM-1, U-87 MG, and C6 glioma cell lines.Biometals : an international journal on the role of metal ions in biology, biochemistry, and medicine · 2026Article
- Venous thromboembolism and secondary outcomes of bleeding and mortality in patients with gliomas: a multicenter cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- AI tool for predicting MGMT methylation in glioblastoma for clinical decision support in resource limited settings.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The majority of patients diagnosed with glioblastoma develop recurrent disease resulting in poor prognoses. The current study aimed to determine the survival rates of patients diagnosed with glioblastoma in Brazil accounting for the influence of age, treatment modalities, public and private practices, and educational level using a population-based national database. Methods: Patients diagnosed with glioblastoma from 1999-2020 were identified from The Fundação Oncocentro de São Paulo database to create a retrospective cohort. Patients were described according to age, education level treatment modalities and medical practice. In a Cox proportional hazards model, controlled for confounding factors for overall survival, the hazard ratio and 95% CI of overall survival in adults was evaluated. Findings: A total of 4,511 patients were included. The median lengths of survival for patients treated in the public and private settings were 8 and 17 months (p<0.001), respectively. Young patients had longer median overall survival (OS: 18 to 40 years, 41 to 60 years, 61 to 65 years, 66 to 70 years and over than 70 years was 22 months, 10 months, 6 months, 5 months, 4 months, respectively (p<0.001). In general, combined treatments were associated with higher median survival compared to monotherapy. The higher educational level, the higher median survival was observed (4 months for illiterate versus 14 months for university degree). In the multivariable analyses, the significant independent predictors for overall survival were practice setting, educational level, age and treatment modalities. Interpretation: Public practice, older patients, less intensive treatment, and lower educational level were associated with worse survival outcomes in Brazilian glioblastoma patients.
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.