ArticleBone & joint open2025
Global and regional disparities in access to specialist sarcoma services.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Cancer care guidelines have been developed in many subspecialities, usually in advanced health systems. However, there are notable global disparities in healthcare access, which can impact sarcoma care. Unfortunately, there is a lack of global data on this subject. Our aim was to describe access to sarcoma care based on a comprehensive global survey among orthopaedic oncologists, and assess for global as well as regional differences. Methods: A 25-question survey was emailed to the attendees of the 2024 Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting and included questions about the respondents' training and practice, access to sarcoma centres, and specific items for sarcoma diagnosis and treatment. For data analysis and comparison, countries were grouped geographically and per the World Bank's income classification. Results: A total of 192 specialists from 47 countries completed the survey (67%). Overall, 40% declared that most patients in their country were treated in a specialized sarcoma centre. Declared access to specific diagnostic technology ranged from 69% (translocation studies) to 86% (various immunohistochemistry). Only 31% stated having access to proton therapy and 82% to all possible reconstruction methods. Compromise of ideal surgical management because of prior treatments and financial constraints was declared to have happened regularly in 40% and 17% of practices, respectively. Regions with better-developed healthcare systems had improved access to all aspects surveyed. Similar results were observed when comparing high-income countries against low- to middle-income countries. Conclusion: Our study highlights substantial global and regional disparities in access to sarcoma services, which could potentially impact clinical outcomes. Further studies are needed to clarify this reality.
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.