ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2014
Critical items for assessing risk of lung and colorectal cancer in primary care: a Delphi study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Delphi consensus recommendation for optimization of pulmonary hypertension therapy focusing on switching from a phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor to riociguat.Pulmonary circulation · 2022Article
- Development and validation of a set of patient reported outcome measures to assess effectiveness of asthma prophylaxis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Article
- Management of repository corticotropin injection therapy for non-infectious uveitis: a Delphi study.Acta ophthalmologica · 2021Article
- Delphi consensus recommendations for a treatment algorithm in pulmonary sarcoidosis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2020Review
- Management of repository corticotrophin injection therapy for pulmonary sarcoidosis: a Delphi study.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2020Review
- Integral nutritional approach to the care of cancer patients: results from a Delphi panel.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2018Article
- Recommendations for the use of oral treprostinil in clinical practice: a Delphi consensus project pulmonary circulation.Pulmonary circulation · 2017Article
- Symptom perceptions and help-seeking behaviour prior to lung and colorectal cancer diagnoses: a qualitative study.Family practice · 2015Article
- Recommendations for the clinical management of patients receiving macitentan for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH): A Delphi consensus document.Pulmonary circulationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with lung or colorectal cancer often present late and have a poor prognosis. Identifying diagnostic indicators to optimally assess the risk of these cancers in primary care would support early identification and timely referral for patients at increased risk.
aimTo obtain consensus regarding potential diagnostic indicators that are important for assessing the risk of lung or colorectal cancer in primary care consulters presenting with lung or abdominal symptoms. DESIGN AND
settingA Delphi study was conducted with 28 participants from primary and secondary care and academic settings in the UK and Europe.
methodIndicators were obtained from systematic reviews, recent primary studies and consultation with experts prior to the Delphi study being conducted. Over three rounds, participants rated each diagnostic indicator in terms of its importance, ranked them in order of importance, and rated each item as crucial or not crucial to assess during a GP consultation.
resultsThe final round resulted in 25 items remaining for each type of cancer, including established cancer symptoms such as rectal bleeding for colorectal cancer and haemoptysis for lung cancer, but also less frequently used indicators such as patients' concerns about cancer.
conclusionThis study highlights the items clinicians feel would be most crucial to include in the clinical assessment of primary care patients, a number of which have rarely been noted in the previous literature. Their importance in assessing the risk of lung or colorectal cancer will be tested as part of a large prospective cohort study (CANDID).
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.