ArticleJAMA network open2026
Diagnostic Timing and Ovarian Cancer Survival.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: While earlier diagnosis improves outcomes for many cancers, studies report that earlier diagnosis does not improve ovarian cancer (OC) survival, discouraging investment in diagnostic improvements. One possible explanation is confounding due to the wait time paradox, in which patients with severe disease are diagnosed more quickly but have poorer outcomes, masking potential benefits of earlier diagnosis. Objective: To visualize how nonlinear modeling of time to diagnosis alters observed associations with OC survival, with particular attention to the wait time paradox. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry with linked multipayer claims from Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. Participants included female patients diagnosed with OC from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2019, in North Carolina. Follow-up was completed June 30, 2021. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2024, to November 1, 2025. Exposure: Time to diagnosis, defined as the interval from the earliest symptom-related health care encounter to cancer diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause 5-year mortality. Results: Among 2359 women included in the analysis (median age, 71 [IQR, 64-78] years), the median diagnostic interval was 33 (IQR, 10-149) days. Compared with all other quartiles, patients in the second-shortest quartile of the diagnostic interval were more likely to be diagnosed at localized (83 of 586 [14.2%] vs 180 of 1773 [10.2%]) or regional (134 of 586 [22.9%] vs 330 of 1773 [18.6%]) stages (P = .001) and had a median survival exceeding 5 years (lower 95% CI bound, 4.1 years), compared with median survivals of 2.5 years (95% CI, 2.0-3.1 years) in the shortest quartile and 2.9 years (95% CI, 2.5-3.8 years) in the longest quartile. When modeled using restricted cubic splines, the adjusted association between time to diagnosis and mortality was U-shaped; compared with a reference interval of 80 days, intervals of 10 and 360 days were associated with higher mortality (hazard ratios, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.09-1.53] and 1.13 [95% CI, 0.88-1.46], respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with OC, very short diagnostic intervals were associated with poorer survival, consistent with residual confounding by the wait time paradox, while longer diagnostic intervals were also associated with worse outcomes. Conventional linear approaches may obscure this important confounding by severity in the association between diagnostic timing and survival, contributing to null findings in prior studies and potentially discouraging efforts to improve diagnosis of this difficult-to-detect disease.
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.