Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16834856›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2006

Prospective analysis of scrotal pathology referrals - are referrals appropriate and accurate?

Paul W Foster, Alastair W S Ritchie, David J Jones

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Prospective evaluation of a novel one-stop testicular clinic.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2008
    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

3 authors.

Paul W FosterUrological Surgery Unit, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust. pwfoster@doctors.org.uk
Alastair W S Ritchie
David J Jones

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTesticular cancer is a relatively uncommon, treatable condition. A general practitioner would expect to see, on average, one case of testicular cancer in the whole of their career. Benign scrotal conditions are extremely common and the source of many primary care consultations. The main patient expectations of these attendances are accurate diagnosis and adequate re-assurance as often they are the source of much anxiety and perceived embarrassment. The aim of this study was to examine the content and referral practice of primary care referral of testicular pathology and the resultant findings of the specialist practitioner. PATIENTS AND

methodsA total of 201 patients referred with scrotal pathology were prospectively analysed at the time of specialist practitioner assessment by means of data recording in a urological surgery unit and regional peripheral community clinics.

resultsIn the study group, 53 patients were referred under the 2-week rule. Of these, 9 (17%) were found to have testicular cancer. Five (36%) cancers were referred outside the 2-week rule referrals; 1 cancer was missed and 2 diagnoses delayed. In total, 44% of final clinical diagnoses differed between the referring primary care physician and the specialist practitioner. Of the 71 (35%) patients referred with a suspicion of cancer, 62 (87%) were subsequently found to be of clinically benign pathology. Overall, 80% of patients were referred more urgently than the opinion of the specialist practitioner.

conclusionsScrotal examination in the primary care setting appears to be of variable accuracy. Many patients referred with a high suspicion of cancer are found to have benign pathology. Two-week rule referrals have an acceptable positive predictive value for testicular cancer (17%). Disagreements exist in the referral priority of patients.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelChildChild, PreschoolEnglandFamily PracticeGenital Diseases, MaleHealth PrioritiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID16834856
PMCPMC1964653

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.