ArticleDysphagia2004
Dysphagia referrals to a district general hospital gastroenterology unit: hard to swallow.
Article in Dysphagia, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a clinical score to distinguish malignant from benign esophageal disease in an undiagnosed patient population referred to an esophageal diagnostic assessment program.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Taking the history in patients with swallowing disorders: an international multidisciplinary survey.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2017Article
- Article
- Improved clinical outcomes and efficacy with a nurse-led dysphagia hotline service.Frontline gastroenterology · 2013Article
- Predictive value of symptoms and demographics in diagnosing malignancy or peptic stricture.World journal of gastroenterology · 2012Article
- Criteria for Referring Patients With Outpatient Gastroenterological Disease for Specialist Consultation: A Review of the Literature.Gastroenterology research · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of our study was to audit dysphagia referrals received by a specialist gastroenterology unit during an entire year. We used a prospective audit carried out over a 12-month period at the District General Hospital gastroenterology unit. The audit included 396 consecutive patients who were referred with swallowing difficulties. We found that 60 referrals (15.2%) were inaccurate and the patients had no swallowing problem. Of the 336 patients with genuine dysphagia, only 29 (8.6%) were new cancer cases. The large majority of subjects had benign disease mostly related to acid reflux. Weight loss was significantly associated with malignancy but also occurred in one third of patients with reflux alone. The temporal pattern of dysphagia was not significantly predictive of cancer. All the cancer patients were above the age of 50 years. Although patients were in general assessed rapidly after hospital referral, the productivity, in terms of early tumor diagnosis, was extremely low. We conclude that there is a substantial rate of inaccurate referrals of dysphagia patients. Most true cases of swallowing difficulty relate to benign disease. Even the devotion of considerable resources to the early diagnosis of esophago gastric malignancy in an attempt to conform with best practice guidelines results in a very low success rate in terms of the detection of potentially curable tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.