SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Cancer in adults with intellectual disability: a systematic review of prevalence and incidence.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cancer prevention and screening for people with intellectual disabilities in Europe: a systematic review and recommendations for policy and practice.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Cancer screening in people with intellectual disability: a scoping review of participation, barriers, facilitators, and improvement strategies within the EUCanScreen initiative.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe epidemiology and pattern of cancer in people with an intellectual disability is poorly documented. Emerging evidence reports that a different profile and trajectory of cancer burden is experienced in this population. The prevalence and incidence of cancer in this group have not been systematically synthesised. This review will address a significant gap in the evidence base.
methodsThe Joanna Briggs Prevalence and Incidence methodology was used to guide the conduct of this review. Reporting the review adheres to the PRISMA checklist. Observational studies reporting prevalence and incidence of cancer and cancer subtypes in adults with intellectual disability were identified through searches of Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and grey literature from database inception dates to May 2025. A modified JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist was used to assess study quality. Meta-analyses were completed using Meta-XL., with pooled estimates reported where appropriate and narrative synthesis provided for heterogeneous results.
resultsTwo articles reported cancer prevalence and ten reported cancer incidences. The pooled prevalence was 2% (95% CI: 1-3%). Incidence estimates varied from 1.0 to 4.7% but were from studies with different designs and follow-up periods, limiting direct comparability. Overall, findings tentatively suggest a similar to lower overall cancer prevalence and incidence to the general population, but some studies reported higher rates of ovarian, testicular and unknown primary cancers. The methodological quality of most (n = 11) studies was high. Meta-analyses showed substantial statistical heterogeneity for included incidence studies reflecting methodological and clinical differences.
conclusionsComparisons across studies are limited by heterogeneity in definitions of intellectual disability, study settings and cancer case identification. Challenges in synthesising cancer data in this population highlight the urgent need to identify people with intellectual disabilities at a population level and in cancer registries to help develop evidence that supports policy and practice in this area. Robust evidence is needed to inform clinical decision-making and policy development as the current epidemiological evidence is currently insufficient for this purpose.
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.