Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20132704›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2010

Cancer diagnosis in primary care.

William Hamilton

Abstract readCommentReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Diagnostic value of symptoms of oesophagogastric cancers in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Diagnosis and management of cancer recurrence: a clinical update for GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

William HamiltonNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol. w.hamilton@bristol.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Around a quarter of those in the developed world die of cancer. Most cancers present to primary care with symptoms, even when there is a screening test for the particular cancer. However, the symptoms of cancer are also symptoms of benign disease, and the GP has to judge whether cancer is a possible explanation. Very little research examined this process until relatively recently. This review paper examines the process of primary care diagnosis, especially the selection of patients for rapid investigation. It concentrates on the four commonest UK cancers: breast, lung, colon, and prostate as these have been the subject of most recent studies.

Indexed as

Family PracticeAdultBreast NeoplasmsColonic NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsOvarian NeoplasmsPhysician's RoleProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID20132704
PMCPMC2814263

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.