ArticleCancer medicine2025
Long-Term Trends and Projections of Multiple Myeloma Across Three Continents: A Comparative Study of China, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, England and France (1990-2036).
Article in Cancer medicine, 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.
- Efficacy and Safety of Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Combination Therapies: A Systematic Review Integrating Network Meta-Analysis and Real-World Vigilance Study.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Long-Term Trends and Projections of Multiple Myeloma Across Three Continents: A Comparative Study of China, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, England and France (1990-2036).Cancer medicine · 2025Article
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
objectivesThe objective of this study was to analyse trends in the burden of multiple myeloma (MM) in the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, England, and France) to understand country differences and factors.
methodsThe Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 was utilised to analyse the incidence and mortality trends of MM from 1990 to 2021. An age-period-cohort model was employed to evaluate the disparities among nations, while an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model was employed to forecast the impending developments over the subsequent 15 years.
resultsThe study found the burden of MM continues to increase in China and the Russian Federation, with significant increases particularly in older age groups. In the United States of America, age-standardised incidence rates (ASIR) and age-standardised death rates (ASDR) showed a downward trend, reflecting a reduction in the burden of disease. In England and France, ASIR increased overall, but ASDR remained stable. The burden of MM was found to be significantly correlated with age, period effect, and birth cohort through age-period-cohort analysis. The ARIMA model predictions indicated an increasing trend in ASIR and a stable ASDR in China and the Russian Federation, while in England, France, and the United States of America, there was an overall stabilisation of ASIR and ASDR.
conclusionsSignificant differences in the burden of MM were found among the five countries. China and the Russian Federation are facing an increasing MM burden, particularly in older age groups, while the United States of America, England and France have made progress through early screening and treatment. The study suggests focusing on older populations, promoting early diagnosis and personalised treatment, and addressing lifestyle and environmental factors. Future research should examine risk factors across countries to inform public health policy.
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.