Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25838506›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2015

Risk factors for emergency presentation with lung and colorectal cancers: a systematic review.

Elizabeth D Mitchell, Benjamin Pickwell-Smith, Una Macleod

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Emergency Department Visits Before Cancer Diagnosis Among Women at Mayo Clinic.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Colonic Stenting in the Emergency Setting.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Elizabeth D MitchellCentre for Health Services Research, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Benjamin Pickwell-SmithAcute General Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK.
Una MacleodSupportive Care, Early Diagnosis and Advanced disease (SEDA) Research Group, Centre for Health and Population Sciences, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify patient and practitioner factors that influence cancer diagnosis via emergency presentation (EP).

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EBM Reviews, Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science and Humanities. Searches were undertaken from 1996 to 2014. No language restrictions were applied. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design assessing factors associated with diagnosis of colorectal or lung cancer via EP, or describing an intervention to impact on EP, were included. Studies involving previously diagnosed cancer patients, assessing only referral pathway effectiveness, outcomes related to diagnosis or post-EP management were excluded. The population was individual or groups of adult patients or primary care practitioners. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion.

results22 studies with over 200,000 EPs were included, most providing strong evidence. Five were graded 'insufficient', primarily due to missing information rather than methodological weakness. Older patient age was associated with EP for lung and colorectal cancers (OR 1.11-11.03 and 1.19-5.85, respectively). Women were more at risk of EP for lung but not colorectal cancer. Higher deprivation increased the likelihood of lung cancer EP, but evidence for colorectal was less conclusive. Being unmarried (or divorced/widowed) increased the likelihood of EP for colorectal cancer, which was also associated with pain, obstruction and weight loss. Lack of a regular source of primary care, and lower primary care use were positively associated with EP. Only three studies considered practitioner factors, two involving diagnostic tests. No conclusive evidence was found.

conclusionsPatient-related factors, such as age, gender and deprivation, increase the likelihood of cancer being diagnosed as the result of an EP, while cancer symptoms and patterns of healthcare utilisation are also relevant. Further work is needed to understand the context in which risk factors for EP exist and influence help-seeking.

Indexed as

EmergenciesColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMalePrimary Health CareRisk FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsColorectal cancerEarly diagnosisLung cancerPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID25838506
PMCPMC4390717

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.