ArticleJournal of medical physics
Analyzing Global Cancer Control: Progress of National Cancer Control Programs through Composite Indicators and Regression Modeling.
Article in Journal of medical physics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Cancer is a significant public health concern, and National Cancer Control Programs (NCCPs) are crucial for reducing its burden. However, assessing the progress of NCCPs is challenging due to the complexity of cancer control outcomes and the various factors that influence them. Composite indicators can provide a comprehensive and accurate assessment of NCCP progress. Materials and Methods: The dataset was compiled for 144 countries and comprised eight composite indices and two high-level comparative indicators (mortality-to-cancer incidence ratio [MIR] and 5-year cancer prevalence-to-incidence ratio [PCIR]) representing NCCP outcomes. Two large databases and six annual composite index reports were consulted. Linear regression analysis and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to establish a relationship between indicators and NCCP outcomes. A multiple regression machine learning model was generated to further improve the accuracy of NCCP outcome prediction. Results: High-income countries had the highest cancer incidence, whereas low-income countries had the highest MIR. Linear regression analysis indicated a negative trend between all composite indicators and MIR, whereas a positive trend was observed with PCIR. The Human Development Index and the Legatum Prosperity Index had the highest adjusted Conclusions: Overall, composite indicators can be an effective tool for evaluating NCCP, and the results of this study can aid in the development and keeping track of NCCP progress for better cancer control.
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.