ArticleCancer medicine2024
Relationship between educational level and survival of patients with cancer: A multicentre cohort study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. 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.
- A scoping review of symptom clusters during chemotherapy in colorectal cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Global, regional, and national trends and inequality analysis of the total cancers and 29 cancer types from 1990 to 2021.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Nuclear magnetic resonance-based metabolomics and risk of pancreatic cancer: a prospective analysis in the UK Biobank.Journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Article
- Cancer prevalence and its determinants in Hungary: Analyzing data from the 2009, 2014, and 2019 European Health Interview Surveys.PloS one · 2025Article
- Relationship between educational level and survival of patients with cancer: A multicentre cohort study.Cancer medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough socioeconomic factors are important determinants of population mortality, the effect of educational level on the survival of patients with cancer in China is unclear. This study aimed to assess whether educational level is associated with the prognosis of patients with cancer and to explore the mediators of this association.
methodsThis multicentre cohort study included 18,251 patients diagnosed with cancer between May 2013 and December 2018. The main parameters measured were overall survival (OS) and all-cause mortality. The relationship between educational level and all-cause mortality was assessed using multifactor-corrected Cox survival analysis. Logistic regression was used to analyze the association between educational level and patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA).
resultsThe mean age of the 18,251 participants (men, 9939 [54.4%]) was 57.37 ± 11.66 years. Multifactorial survival analysis showed that patients survived longer with increasing education (university and above vs. elementary school and below; p = p = <0.001, HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.77-0.92), and the differences were statistically significant in different subgroups. The potential impact factors included sex, age, TNM stage, and PG-SGA score. Logistic regression showed a significant negative association between educational level and the modifiable factor PG-SGA (secondary vs. primary and below; p = 0.004, HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83-0.97; university and above vs. primary and below; p < 0.001, HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.71-0.88).
conclusionsEducational level was a significant prognostic factor for patients with cancer, independent of other known prognostic factors. This association was further improved by modifying the nutritional status.
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.