Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26141458›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2015

Primary care characteristics and stage of cancer at diagnosis using data from the national cancer registration service, quality outcomes framework and general practice information.

Rebecca Maclean, Mona Jeffreys, Alex Ives, Tim Jones, Julia Verne, Yoav Ben-Shlomo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Association between use of urgent suspected cancer referral and mortality and stage at diagnosis: a 5-year national cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Rebecca MacleanSpeciality Registrar in Public Health, NHS England, South Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol, BS1 3NX, UK. Rebecca.maclean1@nhs.net.
Mona JeffreysSenior Lecturer in Epidemiology, School for Social and Community Medicine, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. mona.jeffreys@bris.ac.uk.
Alex IvesSenior Analyst, Public Health England Knowledge and Intelligence team (South West), 1st floor, Grosvenor House, 149 Whiteladies Road, Bristol, BS8 2RA, UK. Alex.ives@phe.gov.uk.
Tim JonesResearch Assistant, NIHR CLAHRC West, 9th Floor, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK. timonthy.jones@bris.ac.uk.
Julia VernePublic Health England Knowledge and Intelligence team (South West), 1st floor, Grosvenor House, 149 Whiteladies Road, Bristol, BS8 2RA, UK. Julia.verne@phe.gov.uk.
Yoav Ben-ShlomoSchool for Social and Community Medicine, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. Y.ben-shlomo@bris.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurvival from cancer is worse in England than in some European countries. To improve survival, strategies in England have focused on early presentation (reducing delay to improve stage at diagnosis), improving quality of care and ensuring equity throughout the patient pathway. We assessed whether primary care characteristics were associated with later stage cancer at diagnosis (stages 3/4 versus 1/2) for female breast, lung, colorectal and prostate cancer.

methodsData obtained from the National Cancer Registration Service, Quality Outcomes Framework, GP survey and GP workforce census, linked by practice code. Risk differences (RD) were calculated by primary care characteristics using a generalised linear model, accounting for patient clustering within practices. Models were adjusted for age, sex and an area-based deprivation measure.

resultsFor female breast cancer, being with a practice with a higher two week wait (TWW) referral rate (RD -1.8% (95 % CI -0.5% to -3.2%) p = 0.003) and a higher TWW detection rate (RD -1.7% (95 % CI -0.3% to -3.0%) p = 0.003) was associated with a lower proportion diagnosed later. Being at a practice where people thought it less easy to book at appointment was associated with a higher percentage diagnosed later (RD 1.8% (95 % CI 0.2% to 3.4%) p = 0.03). For lung cancer, being at practices with higher TWW referral rates was associated with lower proportion advanced (RD-3.6% (95 % CI -1.8%, -5.5%) p < 0.001) whereas being at practices with more patients per GP was associated with higher proportion advanced (RD1.8% (95 % CI 0.2, 3.4) p = 0.01). A higher rate of gastrointestinal investigations was associated with a lower proportion of later stage colorectal cancers (RD -2.0% (95 % CI -0.6% to -3.6%) p = 0.01). No organisational characteristics were associated with prostate cancer stage.

conclusionEasier access to primary care, faster referral and more investigation for gastrointestinal symptoms could reduce the proportion of people diagnosed later for female breast, lung and colorectal, but not prostate cancer. Differences between the four main cancers suggest different policies may be required for individual cancers to improve outcomes.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedDelayed DiagnosisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPrimary Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareRegistriesRiskYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26141458
PMCPMC4491217

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.