Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2012
Identifying patients with suspected colorectal cancer in primary care: derivation and validation of an algorithm.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
65 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of ColonFlag as a Complete Blood Count-Based Machine Learning Algorithm for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Development, validation and effectiveness of diagnostic prediction tools for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Pooled it
- Weight loss as a predictor of cancer in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Pooled it
- Opportunities and challenges in developing risk prediction models with electronic health records data: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Pooled it
- Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer in people with symptoms: a systematic review.BMC gastroenterology · 2016Pooled it
- Evaluating a computer aid for assessing stomach symptoms (ECASS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.Trials · 2016Trial
- Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Colorectal Cancer Risk Prediction Tool in Primary Care to Increase Screening Uptake in Singapore: A Multi-Methods Pilot Study.Journal of primary care & community healthTrial
- Development and external validation of a machine-learning risk model for colorectal cancer triage in Sweden's fast-track pathway.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- A machine learning tool for identifying metastatic colorectal cancer in primary care.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Predicting short-term risk of colorectal cancer using primary care records, genetics and lifestyle factors.BMJ oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Nonspecific Signs and/or Symptoms of Cancer: A Retrospective, Observational Analysis from a Secondary Care, US Community Oncology Dataset.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Observational
- The performance of FIT-based and other risk prediction models for colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic patients: a systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Review
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Based on Predicted Risk: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer in Patients with Symptoms.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Review
- 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 · 2023Article
- Article
5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarlier diagnosis of colorectal cancer could help improve survival so better tools are needed to help this.
aimTo derive and validate an algorithm to quantify the absolute risk of colorectal cancer in patients in primary care with and without symptoms. DESIGN AND
settingCohort study using data from 375 UK QResearch® general practices for development and 189 for validation.
methodIncluded patients were aged 30-84 years, free at baseline from a diagnosis of colorectal cancer and without rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, appetite loss, or weight loss in the previous 12 months. The primary outcome was incident diagnosis of colorectal cancer recorded in the next 2 years. Risk factors examined were age, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol status, deprivation, diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, family history of gastrointestinal cancer, gastrointestinal polyp, history of another cancer, rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, abdominal distension, appetite loss, weight loss, diarrhoea, constipation, change of bowel habit, tiredness, and anaemia. Cox proportional hazards models were used to develop separate risk equations in males and females. Measures of calibration and discrimination assessed performance in the validation cohort.
resultsThere were 4798 incident cases of colorectal cancer from 4.1 million person-years in the derivation cohort. Independent predictors in males and females included family history of gastrointestinal cancer, anaemia, rectal bleeding, abdominal pain, appetite loss, and weight loss. Alcohol consumption and recent change in bowel habit were also predictors in males. On validation, the algorithms explained 65% of the variation in females and 67% in males. The receiver operating curve statistics were 0.89 (females) and 0.91 (males). The D statistic was 2.8 (females) and 2.9 (males). The 10% of patients with the highest predicted risks contained 71% of all colorectal cancers diagnosed over the next 2 years.
conclusionThe algorithm has good discrimination and calibration and could potentially be used to help identify those at highest risk of current colorectal cancer, to facilitate early referral and investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.