The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gynecologic cancer disparities: A report from the Health Disparities Taskforce of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology
Open accessAbstract
Objectives To review the extent of health disparities in gynecologic cancer care and outcomes and to propose recommendations to help counteract the disparities. Methods We searched the electronic databases PubMed and the Cochrane Library. We included studies demonstrating quantifiable differences by race and ethnicity in the incidence, treatment, and survival of gynecologic cancers in the United States (US). Most studies relied on retrospective data. We focused on differences between Black and White women, because of the limited number of studies on non-Black women. Results White women have a higher incidence of ovarian cancer compared to Black women. However, the all-cause ovarian cancer mortality in Black women is 1.3 times higher than that of White women. Endometrial and cervical cancer mortality in Black women is twice that of White women. The etiology of these disparities is multifaceted. However, much of the evidence suggests that equal care leads to equal outcomes for Black women diagnosed with gynecologic cancers. Underlying molecular factors may play an additional role in aggressive tumor biology and endometrial cancer disparities. Conclusion Gynecologic cancer disparities exist between Black and White women. The literature is limited by the lack of large prospective trials and adequate numbers of non-Black racial and ethnic groups. We conclude with recommendations for continued research and a multifaceted approach to eliminate gynecologic cancer disparities.
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
Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-5843 · Cited by 7,043
Haider, A. H., Scott, V. K., Rehman, K. A., Velopulos, C., Bentley, J. M., Cornwell, E. E., & Al-Refaie, W. (2013) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.11.014 · Cited by 593
Cited by
The Growing Burden of Endometrial Cancer: A Major Racial Disparity Affecting Black Women
Cote, M. L., Ruterbusch, J. J., Olson, S. H., Lu, K., & Ali-Fehmi, R. (2015) · Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-0316 · Cited by 272
Detection of endometrial cancer via molecular analysis of DNA collected with vaginal tampons.
Bakkum-Gamez, J. N., Wentzensen, N., Maurer, M. J., Hawthorne, K. M., Voss, J. S., Kroneman, T. N., Famuyide, A. O., Clayton, A. C., Halling, K. C., Kerr, S. E., et al. (2015) · Gynecologic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.01.552 · Cited by 107
Sewali, B., Okuyemi, K. S., Askhir, A., Belinson, J., Vogel, R. I., Joseph, A., & Ghebre, R. G. (2015) · Cancer Medicine · doi:10.1002/cam4.429 · Cited by 75
Are ethnic and racial minority women less likely to participate in clinical trials?
Patel, S. N., Staples, J. N., Garcia, C., Chatfield, L., Ferriss, J. S., & Duska, L. (2020) · Gynecologic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.01.040 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Collins, Y., Holcomb, K., Chapman-Davis, E., Khabele, D., & Farley, J. H.
- Venue
- Gynecologic Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-05
- Volume
- 133
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 353-361
- ISSN
- 0090-8258 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2118307358
- Cited by
- 250
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Gynecologic cancer disparities: A report from the Health Disparities Taskforce of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.12.039
- The paper
- Collins, Y., Holcomb, K., Chapman-Davis, E., Khabele, D., & Farley, J. H. (2014). Gynecologic cancer disparities: A report from the Health Disparities Taskforce of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. Gynecologic Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.12.039
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.