Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16551416›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2006

Symptomatic presentation of early colorectal cancer.

D Smith, M Ballal, R Hodder, G Soin, S N Selvachandran, D Cade

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. How sharp can a screening tool be? A qualitative study of patients' experience of completing a bowel cancer screening questionnaire.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2011
    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

6 authors.

D SmithDepartment of Surgery, Leighton Hospital, Crewe, UK. smithdj@hotmail.com
M Ballal
R Hodder
G Soin
S N Selvachandran
D Cade

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIt is believed that increased detection of earlier stage colorectal cancer can only be achieved by screening asymptomatic individuals. We describe a referral pathway for a symptomatic population which achieves a 30% Dukes' A detection rate. PATIENTS AND

methodsFrom October 1999, 4253 patients with distal colonic symptoms, referred by general practitioners, completed a patient consultation questionnaire (PCQ) linked to a computerised record. A weighted numerical score (WNS) was derived for each patient. Patients underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy, a diagnostic outcome was recorded and later Dukes' stage appended. Early and advanced colorectal cancers were separated and PCQ derived symptom profiles compared. Chi-square, Fisher exact, Student's t-test and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis.

resultsA total of 183 patients had cancer, 55 (30%) were Dukes' A early colorectal cancers, 112 were advanced colorectal cancers (Dukes' B-D) and 16 could not be staged. Early colorectal cancers had significant symptoms and comparable profile to advanced colorectal cancers. The tendency in advanced colorectal cancers was towards greater symptom prevalence for only a few primary and systemic symptoms, as reflected by a higher WNS of 75 (P = 0.001).

conclusionsEarly colorectal cancers do have significant symptoms which can easily be captured by a PCQ and objective scoring tool in the secondary care setting. Detection of these cancers has the potential to improve survival.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsEarly DiagnosisFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningProspective StudiesReferral and ConsultationRegression AnalysisRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID16551416
PMCPMC1964069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.