Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 12, pp 3774–3775 | Cite as

Alternative Ways to Study Global Variation in Cancer-Related Research Activity

  • Anton Barchuk
  • Vadim Gushchin
Health Services Research and Global Oncology
  • 50 Downloads

We read with great interest the article by Are et al., entitled “Global Variations in the Level of Cancer-Related Research Activity and Correlation to Cancer-Specific Mortality: Proposal for a Global Curriculum.”1 This article was designed to analyze global variations in the level of cancer-related research activity and correlate it with variations in cancer-specific mortality. We are interested in this topic, because we are promoting high-quality, clinical research activities in Russia through specific educational programs and dissemination of research methodology in clinical oncology.

While we fully agree that cancer-related research activity as well as research literacy is an important factor in establishing high-quality and sustainable cancer care, we would like to draw attention to difficulties and possible pitfalls in the quantitative assessment of the above-mentioned domains.2

Are et al. suggested that the number of country-specific publications could be correlated to the...

References

  1. 1.
    Are C, Caniglia A, Mohammed M, et al. Global variations in the level of cancer-related research activity and correlation to cancer-specific mortality: proposal for a global curriculum. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(3):594–603.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6276-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Are C, Yanala U, Malhotra G, et al. Global curriculum in research literacy for the surgical oncologist. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;25(3):604–16.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6277-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parkin DM, Bray F. Evaluation of data quality in the cancer registry: principles and methods part II. Completeness. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(5):756–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.033.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, et al. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37,513,025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)33326-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rezaeian M. A call for revising the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology statement to include ecologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(7):836–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.02.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vlassov V. Is there epidemiology in Russia? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54(10):740–4.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.54.10.740.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Semiglazov VF, Topuzov EE, Bavli JL, et al. Primary (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy and radiotherapy compared with primary radiotherapy alone in stage IIb–IIIa breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 1994;5(7):591–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Epidemiology Group, Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  2. 2.Petrov National Research Medical Center of OncologySaint PetersburgRussia
  3. 3.Institute for Cancer Care at MercyBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations