Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25602963›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015

Impact of investigations in general practice on timeliness of referral for patients subsequently diagnosed with cancer: analysis of national primary care audit data.

G P Rubin, C L Saunders, G A Abel, S McPhail, G Lyratzopoulos, R D Neal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Variations in the investigation of colorectal cancer-related symptoms 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
  5. Article
  6. Patterns of diagnostic testing for oesophagogastric cancer-related symptoms in Australian primary care: a retrospective cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care: a secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  20. Reimagining the diagnostic pathway for gastrointestinal cancer.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2018
    Review
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

6 authors.

G P RubinEvaluation, Research and Development Unit, School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Wolfson Research Institute, University of Durham, Queen's Campus, University Boulevard, Stockton-on-Tees TS17 6BH, UK.
C L SaundersDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK.
G A AbelDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK.
S McPhailNational Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN), Public Health England, 5th Floor, Wellington House, 135-155 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UG, UK.
G LyratzopoulosDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK.
R D NealNorth Wales Centre for Primary Care Research, College of Health & Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwenfro Unit 5, Wrexham Technology Park, Wrexham LL13 7YP, UK.

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2011-04-047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor patients with symptoms of possible cancer who do not fulfil the criteria for urgent referral, initial investigation in primary care has been advocated in the United Kingdom and supported by additional resources. The consequence of this strategy for the timeliness of diagnosis is unknown.

methodsWe analysed data from the English National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care on patients with lung (1494), colorectal (2111), stomach (246), oesophagus (513), pancreas (327), and ovarian (345) cancer relating to the ordering of investigations by the General Practitioner and their nature. Presenting symptoms were categorised according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on referral for suspected cancer. We used linear regression to estimate the mean difference in primary-care interval by cancer, after adjustment for age, gender, and the symptomatic presentation category.

resultsPrimary-care investigations were undertaken in 3198/5036 (64%) of cases. The median primary-care interval was 16 days (IQR 5-45) for patients undergoing investigation and 0 days (IQR 0-10) for those not investigated. Among patients whose symptoms mandated urgent referral to secondary care according to NICE guidelines, between 37% (oesophagus) and 75% (pancreas) were first investigated in primary care. In multivariable linear regression analyses stratified by cancer site, adjustment for age, sex, and NICE referral category explained little of the observed prolongation associated with investigation.

interpretationFor six specified cancers, investigation in primary care was associated with later referral for specialist assessment. This effect was independent of the nature of symptoms. Some patients for whom urgent referral is mandated by NICE guidance are nevertheless investigated before referral. Reducing the intervals between test order, test performance, and reporting can help reduce the prolongation of primary-care intervals associated with investigation use. Alternative models of assessment should be considered.

Indexed as

Clinical AuditGeneral PracticePrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsTime FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID25602963
PMCPMC4333492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.