ReviewThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2026
Measuring cancer equity globally: harmonising international rural-urban classifications for exploring cancer outcomes.
Review in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of rurality status with all-cause and cancer-specific survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis adjusting for clinical factors, demographics, and geographical remoteness.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
- Towards equitable cancer outcomes for rural and remote communities: reflections, lessons and recommendations.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
- Implementation strategies for evidence-based healthcare interventions in rural and remote settings: a scoping review.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Geographic disparities in cancer outcomes represent a critical health equity challenge, with rural populations consistently experiencing poorer outcomes than urban populations. The lack of harmonised rurality measures creates substantial barriers to evidence synthesis and has precluded meta-analyses. This perspectives paper discusses concepts of rurality, identifies rurality classification systems used by cancer researchers in OECD countries that can be harmonised with the OECD Extended Typology, and develops recommendations for consistent rural-urban coding. Targeted searches of grey and published literature on cancer policy and rurality classification systems were conducted. The secondary analysis examined studies identified through systematic database searching of OVID Medline, Elsevier Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. From 289 studies across 22 OECD countries, twenty-seven rurality classification systems were identified, with eleven systems harmonised to create the Rural-Urban Classification System Harmonisation Framework featuring a consistent five-point rurality scale and standardised urban-rural dichotomisation. Implementation recommendations address system selection, standardised categorisation, and reporting standards. Adopting this harmonisation framework will improve research comparability and strengthen evidence to inform equitable cancer policies. Funding: Commonwealth of Australia's Medical Research Future Fund (MRF2030313).
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.