ArticleCancer medicine2025
A Scoping Review Mapping Trans* and Gender Diverse People's Representation in Cancer Research.
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.
- Urological care for sexual and gender minorities: a narrative review toward equitable care.Current opinion in urology · 2026Review
- A Scoping Review Mapping Trans* and Gender Diverse People's Representation in Cancer Research.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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTrans* and gender diverse people (TGD) are at risk of experiencing inequities across the cancer continuum. While limited evidence suggests cancer is a concern for TGD people, few systematic reviews or other knowledge syntheses exist that can guide efforts to improve the evidence base and address the inequities TGD people face in cancer care.
methodsOur team conducted a mixed methods scoping review exploring how cancer affects TGD people. We extracted data on cancer type and phase of the cancer continuum, gender definition operationalization, results, and TGD engagement. We followed JBI's meta-aggregation approach for mixed methods reviews by qualitizing quantitative data through narrative interpretation and pooling to integrate the extracted data.
resultsA search of multiple databases yielded 5986 titles after de-duplication. Reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and identified 511 citations for full text review, and 55 were included for data extraction. Thirty studies reported on cancer screening, most of which focused on sex-based cancers. There was significant variation in terminology used to describe TGD people. We observed a lack of breadth in data used among included studies, limiting the generalizability of results. Six studies engaged TGD people. Few studies investigated cancer outcomes or experiences during the diagnosis and survivorship phases; few focused on survival or mortality outcomes.
conclusionWe observed significant gaps in the body of research on TGD people and cancer. Efforts to improve the evidence base are needed to address knowledge gaps about TGD people's cancer experiences and outcomes and ensure the delivery of inclusive, evidence-based cancer care is possible.
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.