SynthesisFrontiers in global women's health2024
Sex discrepancies in cancer research: a systematic review of prospective and retrospective investigations in lung, melanoma, and colorectal cancers.
Synthesis in Frontiers in global women's health, 2024. 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
Introduction: According to the latest Cancer Statistics, colorectal, lung, and melanoma are three of the most common cancers that affect both males and females. While males have consistently had a higher incidence and mortality rate in all three types of cancers, females have been shown to have better outcomes. Sex discrepancies in cancer research can impact the efficacy and effectiveness of novel drugs and diagnostic tools. Study results may not accurately represent how the treatment or diagnostic tool performs in the underrepresented sex. To comprehensively assess sex representation in top non-sex-specific cancer research, this systematic review aims to identify if there is equal representation of males and females in colorectal, lung, and melanoma cancer research. Methods: We explored retrospective and prospective clinical studies published in Pubmed from 2014 to 2023 to identify possible sex discrepancies in colorectal, lung, and melanoma cancer. MeSH terms were employed to retrieve relevant studies for each cancer type (colorectal, lung, melanoma). MeSH terms used include "lung cancer", "melanoma", and "colorectal cancer", in combination with "trials", "retrospective", and "prospective". Extracted data included study characteristics (author, year of publication), study design (prospective or retrospective), sample size, and the number of male and female participants. Results: The complete study population consisted of 515,003 patients, of which 275,231 (53%) were males and 237,488 (46%) were females. Specifically, retrospective studies included a total of 302,974 patients with 163,473 (54%) of them identifying as male and 139,072 (46%) patients identifying as female. While prospective studies included a total of 212,029 patients with 111,758 (53%) of these being male and 98,416 (46%) being female. Overall, male representation in the studies included in this systematic review was higher than female representation. Discussion: Disparities in representation were identified in colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma cancer studies underscoring the need for equitable inclusion of both sexes in cancer research to advance precision medicine and improve patient outcomes. Further exploration of the impact of sex, race, and socioeconomic status on study representation is warranted.
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.