The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Global and Regional Survival Rate of Women With Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the world. The aim of this study was to measure the global and regional survival rates of women with breast cancer. We searched Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify cohort studies on the survival rate of women with primary invasive breast cancer until the end of June 2017. We used random effect models to estimate the pooled 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression models were used to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity. One hundred twenty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis. Between-study heterogeneities in the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were significantly high (all I2s > 50%; P = .001). The global 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year pooled survival rates in women with breast cancer were 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.94), 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.71-0.75), and 0.61% (95% CI, 0.54-0.67), respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed that survival rates varied in different World Health Organization regions, age and stage at diagnosis, year of the studies, and degree of development of countries. Meta-regression indicated that year of the study (β = 0.07; P = .002) and development of country (β = -0.1; P = .0001) were potential sources of heterogeneity. The survival rate was improved in recent decades; however, it is lower in developing regions than developed ones.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012
Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Dikshit, R., Eser, S., Mathers, C., Rebelo, M., Parkin, D. M., Forman, D., & Bray, F. (2015) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.29210 · Cited by 28,766
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2016) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21332 · Cited by 16,003
Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data
Nyaga, V. N., Arbyn, M., & Aerts, M. (2014) · Archives of Public Health · doi:10.1186/2049-3258-72-39 · Cited by 2,139
Hunter, J. P., Saratzis, A., Sutton, A. J., Boucher, R. H., Sayers, R. D., & Bown, M. J. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.003 · Cited by 786
Cited by
Increased cellular senescence in doxorubicin-induced murine ovarian injury: effect of senolytics
Gao, Y., Wu, T., Tang, X., Wen, J., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., & Wang, S. (2023) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-023-00728-2 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Maajani, K., Jalali, A., Alipour, S., Khodadost, M., Tohidinik, H. R., & Yazdani, K.
- Venue
- Clinical Breast Cancer
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-06
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 165-177
- ISSN
- 1526-8209 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2912898308
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 1.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Global and Regional Survival Rate of Women With Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.clbc.2019.01.006
- The paper
- Maajani, K., Jalali, A., Alipour, S., Khodadost, M., Tohidinik, H. R., & Yazdani, K. (2019). The Global and Regional Survival Rate of Women With Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clinical Breast Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2019.01.006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.