Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22054335›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2011

Identifying patients with suspected lung cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm.

Julia Hippisley-Cox, Carol Coupland

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 59 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Lung cancer in symptomatic patients presenting in primary care: a systematic review of risk prediction tools.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. The association between symptoms and bladder or renal tract cancer in primary care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Lung cancer risk score for ever and never smokers in China.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2023
    Article
  19. Underlying cancer risk among patients with fatigue and other vague symptoms: a population-based cohort study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Julia Hippisley-CoxDivision of Primary Care, University of Nottingham, UK. julia.hippisley-cox@nottingham.ac.uk
Carol Coupland

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLung cancer has one of the lowest survival outcomes of any cancer because more then two-thirds of patients are diagnosed when curative treatment is not possible. The challenge is to help earlier diagnosis of lung cancer and hence improve prognosis.

aimTo derive and validate an algorithm incorporating information on symptoms, to estimate the absolute risk of having lung cancer DESIGN AND

settingCohort study of 375 UK QResearch® general practices for development, and 189 for validation.

methodSelected patients were aged 30-84 years and free of lung cancer at baseline and haemoptysis, loss of appetite, or weight loss in previous 12 months. Primary outcome was incident diagnosis of lung cancer recorded in the next 2 years. Risk factors examined were: haemoptysis, appetite loss, weight loss, cough, dyspnoea, tiredness, hoarseness, smoking, body mass index, deprivation score, family history of lung cancer, other cancers, asthma, chronic obstructive airways disease, pneumonia, asbestos exposure, and anaemia. Cox proportional hazards models with age as the underlying time variable were used to develop separate risk equations in males and females. Measures of calibration and discrimination assessed performance in the validation cohort.

resultsThere were 3785 incident cases of lung cancer arising from 4 289 282 person-years in the derivation cohort. Independent predictors were haemoptysis, appetite loss, weight loss, cough, body mass index, deprivation score, smoking status, chronic obstructive airways disease, anaemia, and prior cancer (females only). On validation, the algorithms explained 72% of the variation. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) statistics were 0.92 for both females and males. The D statistic was 3.25 for females and 3.29 for males. The 10% of patients with the highest predicted risks included 77% of all lung cancers diagnosed over the subsequent 2 years.

conclusionThe algorithm has good discrimination and calibration and could potentially be used to identify those at highest risk of lung cancer, to facilitate early referral and investigation.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAppetiteBody Mass IndexCoughEarly Detection of CancerEnglandEpidemiologic MethodsFemaleGeneral PracticeHemoptysisHumansIncidenceLung Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID22054335
PMCPMC3207089

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.