ArticleJournal of evidence-based medicine2026
Publication Characteristics and Reporting Quality of GBD-Derived Burden of Disease Studies: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Lung Cancer.
Article in Journal of evidence-based medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimUsing lung cancer as a model disease, we systematically analyzed the publication characteristics and reporting quality of burden of disease (BoD) studies derived from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Database, to provide evidence for standardizing high-quality BoD research.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted. We included GBD-derived lung cancer BoD studies and evaluated reporting quality using 17 core items of the STROBOD Statement. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to explore factors associated with reporting completeness.
resultsA total of 32 studies showed that the number of publications increased significantly since 2025, with repetitive research topics. Evaluation of the 17 core items in the STROBOD Statement revealed that 88.2% (15/17) of the items had reporting deficiencies. The number of reported core items was 11.19 ± 1.67, and none of the included studies reported all of them. The reporting quality of English studies was significantly higher than that of Chinese studies (p < 0.01).
conclusionsGBD-derived lung cancer BoD studies present severe topic homogeneity and suboptimal reporting quality. Developing tailored reporting guidelines is urgently needed to improve the transparency and reliability of BoD research.
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.