Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19956171›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2009

Do diagnostic delays in cancer matter?

R D Neal

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Interventions to reduce primary care delay in cancer referral: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

R D NealDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, North Wales Clinical School, Cardiff University, Gwenfro 5, Wrexham Technology Park, Wrexham, UK. nealrd@cf.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe United Kingdom has poorer cancer outcomes than many other countries due partly to delays in diagnosing symptomatic cancer, leading to more advanced stage at diagnosis. Delays can occur at the level of patients, primary care, systems and secondary care. There is considerable potential for interventions to minimise delays and lead to earlier-stage diagnosis.

methodsScoping review of the published studies, with a focus on methodological issues.

resultsTrial data in this area are lacking and observational studies often show no association or negative ones. This review offers methodological explanations for these counter-intuitive findings.

conclusionWhile diagnostic delays do matter, their importance is uncertain and must be determined through more sophisticated methods.

Indexed as

Delayed DiagnosisHumansNeoplasmsPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID19956171
PMCPMC2790696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.