Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11461071›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2001

A descriptive study of UK cancer genetics services: an emerging clinical response to the new genetics.

D Wonderling, P Hopwood, A Cull, F Douglas, M Watson, J Burn, K McPherson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. SEOM recommendations on the structure and operation of hereditary cancer genetic counseling units (HCGCUs).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2013
    Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

D WonderlingCancer and Public Health Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
P Hopwood
A Cull
F Douglas
M Watson
J Burn
K McPherson
Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBRoyal Marsden Hospital · GBThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of London · GBWestern General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective was to describe NHS cancer genetic counselling services and compare UK regions. The study design was a cross-sectional study over 4 weeks and attendee survey. The setting was 22 of the 24 regional cancer genetics services in the UK NHS. Participants were individuals aged over 18 attending clinics at these services. Outcome measures were staff levels, referral rates, consultation rates, follow-up plans, waiting time. There were only 11 dedicated cancer geneticists across the 22 centres. Referrals were mainly concerned with breast (63%), bowel (18%) and ovarian (12%) cancers. Only 7% of referrals were for men and 3% were for individuals from ethnic minorities. Referral rates varied from 76 to 410 per million per annum across the regions. Median waiting time for an initial appointment was 19 weeks, ranging across regions from 4 to 53 weeks. Individuals at population-level genetic risk accounted for 27% of consultations (range 0%, 58%). Shortfalls in cancer genetics staff and in the provision of genetic testing and cancer surveillance have resulted in large regional variations in access to care. Initiatives to disseminate referral and management guidelines to cancer units and primary care should be adequately resourced so that clinical genetics teams can focus on the genetic testing and management of high-risk families.

Indexed as

Genetic CounselingGuidelines as TopicHealth Services AccessibilityHumansNeoplasmsRisk ManagementUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID11461071
PMCPMC2364036
OpenAlexW2129442987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.