ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Socioeconomic impact on quality of care in pelvic gynecological cancers.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSeveral European studies have shown health-related social inequalities in pelvic gynecological cancers, with a social gradient in incidence and mortality, partly explained by more advanced stages at diagnosis in low socioeconomic populations. Disparities in treatment and quality of care in these patients could be another cause of inequality in care.
objectivesThis study evaluates the impact of socioeconomic factors on quality of care for pelvic gynecological cancers (adnexal, uterine corpus, and cervix).
methodsThis retrospective multicentric cohort study included women diagnosed with pelvic gynecological invasive cancer, between January 1 and December 31, 2022, in six university hospitals in North Paris. Two socioeconomic indicators, the FDep index and the Evaluation of Deprivation and Inequalities in Health Examination Centers (EPICES) score, were collected. The quality of care was assessed using a binary quality indicator based on selected European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) quality indicators for each cancer. We compared the "Non-adherence to Quality Indicator" (NAQI) group, where one or more of the ESGO quality indicators were not met, to the "Adherence to Quality Indicator" (AQI) group using univariate analysis. An analysis of the time to first treatment, according to FDep and EPICES groups, using a Kaplan-Meier, estimation was completed.
resultsA total of 189 patients were included: 50 with ovarian cancer, 76 with endometrial cancer, and 63 with cervical cancer. Ninety-nine patients (52.4%) belonged to the NAQI group and 90 patients (46.7%) to the AQI group. Patients were significantly in poorer general condition and presented more advanced Federation International of Gynecology Obstetrics (FIGO) stages in the NAQI than in the AQI group (ASA score 3-4: 20/84 [23.8%] vs. 5/76 (6.6%), P < 0.01 and FIGO III-IV stage: 55/99 [55.6%] vs. 35/90 [38.9%], P = 0.03). There was no significant difference for socioeconomic indicators between the NAQI and the AQI groups (FDep quintiles 3-4-5 = 41/99 (41.4%) vs. FDep quintiles 1-2 = 39/90 (43.3%), P = 0.91; EPICES score ≤ 30 = 31/63 (49.2%) vs. EPICES score > 30 = 21/51 (41.2%), P = 0.50). According to FDep and EPICES groups, we found no difference in the time to first treatment.
conclusionWe found no socioeconomic impact on hospital quality of care in pelvic gynecological cancers.
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.