ReviewThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2026
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.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- ASO Author Reflections: Multi-Modal Prehabilitation and Outcomes After Gastroesophageal Cancer Surgery: A Cohort Study of Pulmonary Complications and Resilience to Major Postoperative Events.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Urban-Rural Disparities in Treatment and Outcomes for Colorectal Liver Metastases in the United States: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Stakeholder perspectives on brain tumour care across rural-urban boundaries: a reflexive thematic analysis.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
- Communication practices and experience of connection in telehealth serious illness conversations with rural cancer patients: a qualitative study.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Exploring The Fidelity of Resistance Training Interventions in Regional, Rural, And Remote Cancer Care: A Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2026Article
- Urban-rural disparities in survival of Chinese esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a cohort study of 133,064 cases.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Towards equitable cancer outcomes for rural and remote communities: reflections, lessons and recommendations.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
- Measuring cancer equity globally: harmonising international rural-urban classifications for exploring cancer outcomes.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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The association of rurality status with cancer survival has not been consistently reported. In people diagnosed with cancer, this review aims to determine the association of rural and remote living with survival as compared to urban living, and to determine the modifying effects of geographical, medical, demographic, and socioeconomic factors on cancer survival. A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression was conducted, searching four databases in August 2024. Observational cohort studies were eligible if they reported all-cause or cancer-specific survival according to rurality status in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. All ages, sexes, and cancer types were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and pooled models were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were performed using R statistical environment. 37 studies reporting on 110 comparator groups were included. People with cancer in rural areas were at a survival disadvantage compared to people in urban areas, with 15% lower odds of all-cause survival (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.74, 0.97]) and 10% lower odds of cancer-specific survival (OR: 0.90 [95% CI 0.86, 0.95]). Cancer type and degree of geographical remoteness were consistent modifiers of survival in univariable and multivariable regression. Increasing degree of geographical remoteness was associated with lower odds of all-cause survival (OR 0.28 [95% CI 0.12-0.67]). People living in rural areas diagnosed with cancer have lower odds of all-cause and cancer-specific survival which worsened with increasing geographical remoteness. Type of cancer was consistently found to be a modifying factor of cancer survival. Increased recognition of people living in rural areas as a priority population group in health and cancer policies is needed to improve cancer equity. 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.