Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19785939›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2009

Waiting time to lymph node biopsy is dependent on referral method: don't write, phone!

S A J Pannick, C L Ingham Clark

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

S A J PannickDepartment of Surgery, Whittington Hospital, London, UK.
C L Ingham Clark

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatients with lymphadenopathy are commonly referred to general surgeons for diagnostic lymph node biopsy. We were concerned at potential long waits for this service in our hospital and thus wanted to compare the efficiency of written and telephone referral with a view to identifying the optimum care pathway for these patients. PATIENTS AND

methodsSixty patients were included in a 2-year retrospective review (excluding referrals associated with breast lumps which were managed separately). Hospital Episode Statistics data were used to analyse notes for the source and method of referral, waiting time to biopsy, clinic attendance and diagnosis.

resultsOf referrals, 33% were from haematology and 28% from general practice. Overall, 47% of patients were referred by letter; of these, 64% were seen in clinic before biopsy. Personal referral between clinicians, by direct discussion, e-mail or fax led to a mean wait of 4 days, compared to 51 days when patients were referred by letter. Clinic attendance had no significant bearing on diagnostic accuracy or complication rate. Neoplasia accounted for 43% of diagnoses and infection (including four cases of tuberculosis) for 10%. Of biopsies, 33% showed benign changes, 8% were unrecorded and 5% were incorrect.

conclusionsIn this study, 43% of biopsies revealed malignancy and we advise that lymph node biopsy requests should be managed on a fast-track pathway, expedited by direct personal request. Following this study, we have implemented a fast-track pathway for such patients.

Indexed as

AdultBiopsyEarly Detection of CancerHumansLymphatic DiseasesLymph NodesReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsWaiting Lists

Identifiers

PMID19785939
PMCPMC2966246

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.