ReviewEcancermedicalscience2025
Mapping the cancer research landscape across Zambia: evidence to support national cancer control planning.
Review in Ecancermedicalscience, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Zambia faces the double burden of rising cancer incidence and a disproportionate volume of mortality from delayed presentations. The Ministry of Health Zambia acknowledged cancer research as a key pillar of cancer control in the National Cancer Control Strategic Plan 2022-2026, but there remains a paucity of country-specific evidence to inform strategies, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of research activities. Our study aimed to map and critically analyse the existing cancer research landscape to inform national planning. Methods: We adopted a two-stage mixed-method research. First, we conducted a systematic review, including 76 Zambian cancer studies published between 2012 and 2022, adhering to PRISMA guidance. Second, we conducted an in-person modified consensus meeting in Ndola, Zambia attended by 31 domestic and international stakeholders, to co-develop priorities and strategies based on gaps and facilitators identified through the systematic review. Results: The year-on-year cancer research output in Zambia had risen and diversified beyond cervical cancer but prevention, palliative care and health economic studies were lacking. Delay in deciding to seek care was most studied (n = 17, 63.0%), especially in cervical cancer. Research activities were mostly retrospective ( Conclusion: To strengthen research capacity, sustained commitment to priorities through the implementation of co-developed strategies is required at individual, organisational and institutional levels. This paradigm shift is necessary to deliver evidence-based cancer care tailored to the needs of Zambians with emphasis on value and quality.
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.