Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22520674›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2012

Identifying patients with suspected pancreatic 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 44 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 207 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic Risk Prediction Models for Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    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. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Decision support tools for pancreatic cancer detection: external validation in Australian primary care - a retrospective cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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 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

backgroundPancreatic cancer has the worst survival for any cancer and is often diagnosed late when the cancer is advanced. Chances of survival are more likely if patients can be diagnosed earlier.

aimTo derive and validate an algorithm to estimate absolute risk of having pancreatic cancer in patients with and without symptoms in primary care. 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 pancreatic cancer and had not had dysphagia, abdominal pain, abdominal distension, appetite loss, or weight loss recorded in the preceding 12 months. The primary outcome was incident diagnosis of pancreatic cancer recorded in the following 2 years. Risk factors examined included: age, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol, deprivation, diabetes, pancreatitis, previous diagnosis of cancer apart from pancreatic cancer, dysphagia, abdominal pain, abdominal distension, appetite loss, weight loss, diarrhoea, constipation, tiredness, itching, 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 a total of 1415 incident cases of pancreatic cancer from 4.1 million person-years in the derivation cohort. Independent predictors in both males and females were age, smoking, type 2 diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, abdominal pain, appetite loss, and weight loss. Abdominal distension was a predictor for females only; dysphagia and constipation were predictors for males only. On validation, the algorithms explained 59% of the variation in females and 62% in males. The receiver operating characteristic statistics were 0.84 (females) and 0.87 (males). The D statistic was 2.44 (females) and 2.61 (males). The 10% of patients with the highest predicted risks contained 62% of all pancreatic cancers diagnosed over the following 2 years.

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

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge DistributionEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic NeoplasmsPrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID22520674
PMCPMC3252538
OpenAlexW2080344756

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.