Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25734380›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015

The relative length of the patient and the primary care interval in patients with 28 common and rarer cancers.

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

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 73 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Patient involvement in diagnosing cancer in primary care: a systematic review of current interventions.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 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

7 authors.

G Lyratzopoulos1] Health Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK [2] Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK.
C L SaundersCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK.
G A AbelCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, 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.
R D NealNorth Wales Centre for Primary Care Research, College of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwenfro Unit 5, Wrexham Technology Park, Wrexham LL13 7YP, UK.
J WardleHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
G P RubinWolfson Research Institute, School of Medicine and Health, University of Durham, Queen's Campus, University Boulevard, Stockton-on-Tees TS17 6BH, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18180Cancer Research UK A18180Cancer Research UK C1418/A14134Department of Health PDF-2011-04-047
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAppreciating variation in the length of pre- or post-presentation diagnostic intervals can help prioritise early diagnosis interventions with either a community or a primary care focus.

methodsWe analysed data from the first English National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care on 10 953 patients with any of 28 cancers. We calculated summary statistics for the length of the patient and the primary care interval and their ratio, by cancer site.

resultsInterval lengths varied greatly by cancer. Laryngeal and oropharyngeal cancers had the longest median patient intervals, whereas renal and bladder cancer had the shortest (34.5 and 30 compared with 3 and 2 days, respectively). Multiple myeloma and gallbladder cancer had the longest median primary care intervals, and melanoma and breast cancer had the shortest (20.5 and 20 compared with 0 and 0 days, respectively). Mean patient intervals were longer than primary care intervals for most (18 of 28) cancers, and notably so (two- to five-fold greater) for 10 cancers (breast, melanoma, testicular, vulval, cervical, endometrial, oropharyngeal, laryngeal, ovarian and thyroid).

conclusionsThe findings support the continuing development and evaluation of public health interventions aimed at shortening patient intervals, particularly for cancers with long patient interval and/or high patient interval over primary care interval ratio.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrimary Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedAppointments and SchedulesDelayed DiagnosisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsRare DiseasesReferral and ConsultationTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID25734380
PMCPMC4385974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.