Cancer recognition and primary care.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Impact of referral letters on scheduling of hospital appointments: a randomised control trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
   Trial
2. General practitioner characteristics and delay in cancer diagnosis. a population-based cohort study.BMC family practice · 2011
   Article
3. What are the clinical features of lung cancer before the diagnosis is made? A population based case-control study.Thorax · 2005
   Article
4. Withholding policies from patients restricts their autonomy.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005
   Review
5. Referral of suspected colorectal cancer: have guidelines made a difference?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004
   Article
6. Qualitative study of men's perceptions of why treatment delays occur in the UK for those with testicular cancer.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Cancer recognition and primary care.2002
• Commented on by
  Improving the outcome in colorectal cases.2002

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as