Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22520670›Full record

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.

Julia Hippisley-Cox, Carol Coupland

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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 · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

5 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

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

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID22520670
PMCPMC3252537
OpenAlexW4243675800

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.