Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16638251›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2006

Urgent GP referrals for suspected lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer.

Victoria L Allgar, Richard D Neal, Nasreen Ali, Brenda Leese, Phil Heywood, Gill Proctor, Joyce Evans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Patient and primary care delays in the diagnostic pathway of gynaecological cancers: a systematic review of influencing factors.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. International variation in adherence to referral guidelines for suspected cancer: a secondary analysis of survey data.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Urgent suspected cancer referrals from general practice: audit of compliance with guidelines and referral outcomes.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Do diagnostic delays in cancer matter?British journal of cancer · 2009
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Stage, survival and delays in lung, colorectal, prostate and ovarian cancer: comparison between diagnostic routes.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007
    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.

Victoria L AllgarCentre for Research in Primary Care, Institute of Health Sciences and Public Health Research, University of Leeds, Leeds.
Richard D Neal
Nasreen Ali
Brenda Leese
Phil Heywood
Gill Proctor
Joyce Evans

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe UK urgent cancer referral guidance was introduced between 1999-2000. There is a dearth of literature relating to the effectiveness in detecting cancer of urgent suspected cancer referrals and general practitioners' compliance with the guidance.

aimsThis paper aims to determine the diagnostic yield from urgent referrals for suspected colorectal, lung, ovarian and prostate cancer, and the proportion of patients with cancer who were urgently referred. Secondary aims are to determine the association of these findings with age, ethnicity, sex and marital status, and to determine the proportions of patients who fulfilled the urgent referral criteria.

designDetailed notes analysis of all urgent referrals and all cancer diagnoses.

settingOne hospital trust in England.

methodData regarding all urgent referrals and all cancer diagnoses were obtained from one hospital trust over a 2-year period. Data analysis was undertaken to determine, diagnostic yields and their association with sociodemographic factors, trends over time and fulfilment of the guidance.

resultsThe percentages of urgent referrals diagnosed with cancer were colorectal 11%, lung 42%, ovarian 20%, and prostate 50%. The percentages of patients with cancer referred urgently were colorectal 21%, lung 23%, ovarian 24%, and prostate 32%. Patients who were urgently referred without cancer were younger than those with cancer for all but prostate. There were no significant differences by sex, marital status or ethnicity. For patients with cancer there were no differences for any sociodemographic factors in whether or not they were referred urgently.

conclusionsThe predictive power of the referral guidance as a marker for cancer is low, resulting in significant numbers of patients being urgently referred without cancer. A large majority of patients not diagnosed with cancer through the urgent referral route did fulfil the criteria for urgent referral, suggesting that with more widespread use of the guidance the diagnostic yields will be higher. This has implications for patients, on hospital diagnostic systems, and for patients presenting through other pathways.

Indexed as

AgedColorectal NeoplasmsFamily PracticeFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsOvarian NeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicProstatic NeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationSocioeconomic FactorsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID16638251
PMCPMC1837844

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.