Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41647883›Full record

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.

Skye Marshall, Charlene Wright, Lucy Leigh, Sharina Riva, Megan Crichton, Helena Rodi, Hannah Jongebloed, Elizabeth A Johnston, Rebecca J Bergin, Anna Chapman and 7 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Skye MarshallInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.
Charlene WrightInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.
Lucy LeighHunter Medical Research Institute, New South Wales, Australia.
Sharina RivaInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.
Megan CrichtonCancer and Palliative Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia.
Helena RodiInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.
Hannah JongebloedInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.
Elizabeth A JohnstonCancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Rebecca J BerginInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.
Anna ChapmanInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.
Fiona Crawford-WilliamsCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, South Australia, Australia.
Nicolas H HartCancer and Palliative Outcomes Centre, School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia.
Laura AlstonDeakin Rural Health, Deakin University, Australia.
Joel RheeDiscipline of General Practice, School of Clinical Medicine, University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia.
Lan GaoDeakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.
Kate GunnIIMPACT in Health, Department of Rural Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Anna UgaldeInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cancer survivorsHealth inequitiesMeta-analysisMortalityNeoplasmsOncology service hospitalRural healthRural health servicesSurvival rateSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41647883
PMCPMC12869292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.