ArticleBMJ public health2024
Socioeconomic disparity in stage at cancer diagnosis among patients with type 2 diabetes in Dutch primary care: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ public 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Disparities in cancer stage appear to exist by socioeconomic status (SES) in the Netherlands. We evaluated the association of SES and cancer stage among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treated in primary care. Research design and methods: This cross-sectional study linked data from the primary care Zwolle Outpatient Diabetes Project Integrating Available Care database for T2DM (n=71 648, 1998-2019) to a cancer registry and personal records database in the Netherlands. Only cancers (excluding all skin cancers) diagnosed after the onset of diabetes were included and grouped by stages (III-IV or 0-II). SES was estimated as low, intermediate or high based on postal codes and Dutch social research status scores. Logistic regression was performed, with stratification by sex and correction for age, body mass index, smoking, diabetes duration, glycaemic control and metformin use. ORs and 95% CI are reported. Results: Of the 5087 males and 4021 females with any cancer, 50.1% and 53.7% had low SES, respectively. Compared with patients with high SES, the ORs for diagnosing cancer at stages III-IV in patients with low SES were 1.00 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.19) for males and 1.32 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) for females. However, the ORs varied by cancer type: breast, 1.46 (95% CI 0.90 to 2.39); male colorectal, 1.00 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.43); female colorectal, 1.72 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.77); prostate, 0.81 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.15); male lung, 1.06 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.80) and female lung, 2.56 (95% CI 1.32 to 4.95). Conclusions: Among patients treated for T2DM in Dutch primary care, our data suggest the need to target females with low SES to decrease inequalities in the early detection of colorectal and lung cancer.
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.