ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Urban-rural disparities in survival of Chinese esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a cohort study of 133,064 cases.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare urban-rural disparities in overall survival of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in China and identify independent prognostic factors.
methodsA retrospective cohort study including 133,064 ESCC patients diagnosed between 1973 and 2024 was conducted. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences were tested by log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance baseline characteristics between rural and urban groups.
resultsOverall survival was significantly better in rural patients than in urban patients (log-rank P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that urban residence was an independent risk factor for poor prognosis (HR = 1.032, 95% CI: 1.001-1.064, P = 0.042). Significant urban-rural differences were observed in age, gender, smoking, alcohol intake, tumor differentiation, TNM stage, and treatment modality. Subgroup analysis revealed that the survival advantage of rural patients was more prominent in stage Ⅲ-Ⅳ disease. After 1:1 PSM, survival differences between urban and rural patients were no longer significant (P = 0.375).
conclusionRural residence is an independent favorable prognostic factor for ESCC, and its effect is mainly mediated by baseline clinicopathological characteristics, lifestyle factors, and treatment patterns. After adjusting for confounding factors, survival between urban and rural patients becomes comparable. These findings provide real-world evidence for risk stratification and individualized treatment of ESCC. Future studies are needed to explore the molecular mechanisms underlying urban-rural heterogeneity in ESCC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.