ReviewThe Lancet regional health. Europe2025
Cancer inequalities in the United Kingdom and the data used to measure them: a scoping review.
Review in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How equity in cancer services has been defined and measured, and why it matters: a scoping review of Universal Health Coverage systems.Global health action · 2026Article
- The mirrored burden and accountable handovers in cancer survivorship: co‑designing a post‑treatment transition standard.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Impact of social deprivation on cancer occurrence and cardiovascular events in systemic sclerosis.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2026Article
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
Significant cancer inequalities may exist across the United Kingdom (UK). Data are required to delineate and quantify these inequalities. This scoping review was undertaken to map the research evidence on UK cancer inequalities and determine the current data available, and the data gaps, that, if filled, could inform a strategy to reduce them. 444 studies were included. Their distribution across inequality domains, care pathways and cancer sites was uneven. The majority of studies were based on administrative datasets, notably cancer registry data, with a wide-range of methods used to define inequality groups. No UK-wide population-based evidence was identified. The landscape of data available in the UK to study cancer inequalities is uneven. Although there is a large volume of evidence available, there remain major gaps in both the data available and the knowledge base they are deployed to generate. This deficit needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
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.