SynthesisBMJ open2025
Systematic mapping review of statistical methods applied to the relationships between cancer diagnosis and geographical level factors in UK.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe examined studies that analysed the spatial association of cancers with demographic, environmental, behavioural and/or socioeconomic factors and the statistical methods applied.
designSystematic mapping review. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science (SSCI) (search on 28 July 2022), MEDLINE, SocINDEX and CINAHL (search on 4 August 2022), additional searches included grey literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: (1) Focused on the constituent countries of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and its major regions (eg, the North West); (2) compared cancer(s) outcomes with demographic, environmental, behavioural and socioeconomic characteristics by applying methods to identify their spatial association; (3) reported cancer prevalence, incidence rates, relative risk or ORs for a risk factor or to an average level of cancer. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A standardised data extraction form was developed and for all studies, core data were extracted including bibliographic information, study design, geographical factors analysed, data aggregation level, methods applied and main findings. We described and synthesised the characteristics of the studies using summary tables, charts and graphs.
results52 studies were included covering a variety of objectives and geographical scales. These studies considered different types of cancer, with the most common cancer types analysed being blood and lymphoid cell cancers. The most common methods used to assess the association between cancers and geographical level factors were regression analyses, with the majority being Poisson regression, then logistic and linear regression. Studies were usually conducted at ward and local authority level, or by exact point location when distances from putative risk sources were considered. The results were usually presented in plots or as tables, instead of maps.
conclusionOur results highlight the lack of consideration of spatially explicit models in the analysed studies, with the risk of having failed the assumption of independence in the data. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022349165.
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.