ArticleCancer2025
The impact of the 1997 Office of Management and Budget standards for collecting multiracial data on the assessment of race-specific cancer rates of incidence and mortality in the United States.
Article in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
Abstract
backgroundThe differential implementation of the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards of collecting multiracial data affects the accuracy and comparability of race-specific cancer rates of incidence and mortality.
methodsCancer incidences from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program and cancer deaths from the National Vital Statistics System were obtained. Population data came from Census Bureau postcensal vintage 2022 estimates. Age-standardized rates of incidence and mortality in 2020 were compared via rate ratios across three race definitions: two definitions compliant with the 1997 OMB standards, namely race-alone and race-alone-or-in-combination, and one compliant with the previous 1977 OMB standards, namely bridged-race.
resultsThe proportions of multiracial individuals in the incidence and death data were lower than those in the population data, with the degree varying by age, race, and geography. However, race definitions had minimal impact on rates for Whites, Blacks, and Asians. Race-alone-or-in-combination rates were lower for Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders (NHOPIs) compared to race-alone rates, which suggests an underrepresentation of multiracial NHOPI individuals in the incidence data. Race-alone and race-alone-or-in-combination yielded similar rates for American Indians/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs) but were significantly lower than their bridged-race counterparts, which suggests a mismatch in how AI/AN was classified between the incidence and population data.
conclusionsImproving the representation of multiracial incidence is essential for addressing the unique needs in cancer prevention and care among subpopulations with large shares of multiracial individuals. This article is the first to demonstrate the usefulness of race-alone-or-in-combination categories in capturing cancer burdens for minority race groups.
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.