Table 1.

Description of the eight studies of female breast cancer survival included in the meta-analysis

Reference3–5,8–12	Sampling frame			Aggregate sample	Socio-economic measure			Survival Measure
	Canadian and US places	Cohort incidence years	Followed until		Unit	Conceptual definition	Groupsd compared
Gorey et al. 1997	Toronto vs Detroit	1984–1988	1994	8186	CT	Low-income Prevalence	Tertiles	5-year Cancer-specific
Gorey et al. 2000	Toronto vs Hololulu	1986–1990	1996	7590	CT	Low-income Prevalence	Deciles	5-year All-cause
Gorey et al. 2003	Winnipeg vs Des Moines	1984–1992	1998	3928	CT	Low-income Prevalence	Quintiles	5-year All-cause
Boyd et al. 1999	Ontario vs USAa	1987–1992	1995	74 949c	CT, EA and CSD	Mdn Income	Quintiles	2- to 5-year Cancer-specific
Gorey et al. 2000	Toronto vs San Francisco, Seattle, Hartford	1986–1988	1994	9748	CT	Low-income Prevalence	Tertiles	5-year All-cause
Gorey et al. 1998	Toronto vs Detroit	1986–1988	1994	1789	CT	Low-income Prevalence	Quintiles	5-year Cancer-specific
Gorey et al. 2009	Ontariob vs Californiab	1998–2000	2006	1923	CT and	Low-income Prevalence	Quintiles	5-year All-cause
Zhang-Salomons et al., 2006	Toronto vs Detroit	1988–1993	1999	21 970	CT	Low and Mdn Income	Quintiles	5-year Cancer-specific

Note. CT, census tract; EA, enumeration area; CSD, census subdivision; Mdn, median. All adult samples were ≥20–25 years of age. Three studies additionally analysed younger/older groups (<65/65+).^4,5,11 One study analysed staged groups (node negative/positive breast cancer).¹¹

^aSEER program based.

^bRespectively, sampled large metropolitan areas (greater metropolitan Toronto and the San Francisco Bay area), smaller cities (Windsor and Modesto) and rural places in both Ontario and California.

^cSample not reported. Estimated by secondary analysis.

^dMost extreme comparison used in each study.