Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23735410›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2013

Development and evaluation of a brief self-completed family history screening tool for common chronic disease prevention in primary care.

Fiona M Walter, A Toby Prevost, Linda Birt, Nicola Grehan, Kathy Restarick, Helen C Morris, Stephen Sutton, Peter Rose, Sarah Downing, Jon D Emery

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Family history tools for primary care: A systematic review.The European journal of general practice · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Genetic cancer risk assessment in general practice: systematic review of tools available, clinician attitudes, and patient outcomes.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Family History of Kidney Failure, APOL1 Risk Variants, Social Determinants of Health, and Risk of CKD Progression: Findings From the CRIC Study.American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation · 2026
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Fiona M WalterDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. fmw22@medschl.cam.ac.uk
A Toby Prevost
Linda Birt
Nicola Grehan
Kathy Restarick
Helen C Morris
Stephen Sutton
Peter Rose
Sarah Downing
Jon D Emery

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0807-13141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFamily history is an important risk factor for many common chronic diseases, but it remains underutilised for diagnostic assessment and disease prevention in routine primary care.

aimTo develop and validate a brief self-completed family history questionnaire (FHQ) for systematic primary care assessment for family history of diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer. DESIGN AND

settingTwo-stage diagnostic validation study in 10 general practices in eastern England. Method Participants aged 18-50 years were identified via random sampling from electronic searches of general practice records. Participants completed a FHQ then had a three-generational 'gold standard' pedigree taken, to determine disease risk category. In stage 1, the FHQ comprised 12 items; in stage 2 the shorter 6-item FHQ was validated against the same 'gold standard'.

resultsThere were 1147 participants (stage 1: 618; stage 2: 529). Overall, 32% were at increased risk of one or more marker conditions (diabetes 18.9%, ischaemic heart disease 13.3%, breast cancer 6.2%, colorectal cancer 2.2%). The shorter 6-item FHQ performed very well for all four conditions: pooled data from both stages show diabetes, sensitivity = 98%, specificity = 94%; ischaemic heart disease, sensitivity = 93%, specificity = 81%; breast cancer, sensitivity = 81%, specificity = 83%; colorectal cancer, sensitivity = 96%, specificity = 88%, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 for males and 0.89 for females.

conclusionThis brief self-completed FHQ shows good diagnostic accuracy for identifying people at higher risk of four common chronic diseases. It could be used in routine primary care to identify patients who would be most likely to benefit from a more detailed pedigree and risk assessment, and consequent management strategies.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAdolescentAdultBreast NeoplasmsChronic DiseaseColorectal NeoplasmsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2EnglandFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansMaleMass ScreeningMedical RecordsMiddle AgedMyocardial Ischemia

Identifiers

PMID23735410
PMCPMC3662456

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.