ArticleBioMed research international2015
Missed Opportunities for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer.
Article in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Care delivery among patients with early-onset versus average-onset cholangiocarcinoma: a nationwide retrospective analysis.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Digital quality measure of potentially avoidable emergency presentations among patients with colorectal cancer.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- The pathway to diagnosis of early-onset colorectal cancer: exploring diagnostic intervals and their effect on outcomes.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Clinical challenges and patient experiences in early-onset colorectal cancer: insights from seven European countries.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Are those all my options? Evaluating oncologists' communication strategies in treatment and clinical trial discussions by race and gender.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Observational
- Early Symptom Patterns by Tumor Laterality, Age at Onset, Stage, and Symptom-to-Treatment Initiation in Patients with Colorectal Cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Gender inequalities across ethnicities in primary care cancer referrals: a scoping review protocol.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Referral challenges for early-onset colorectal cancer: a qualitative study in UK primary care.BJGP open · 2023Article
- Red-flag signs and symptoms for earlier diagnosis of early-onset colorectal cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Time duration and health care resource use during cancer diagnoses in the United States: A large claims database analysis.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023Article
- People with early-onset colorectal cancer describe primary care barriers to timely diagnosis: a mixed-methods study of web-based patient reports in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- The Association between Colorectal Cancer and Colonoscopic Conditions in Saudi Patients: A 10-Year Cross-Sectional-Retrospective Study.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2022Article
- Patient-reported diagnostic intervals to colorectal cancer diagnosis in the Midland region of New Zealand: a prospective cohort study.Family practice · 2022Article
- Strategies for the Improvement of Metal-Based Chemotherapeutic Treatments.Biomedicines · 2021Review
- How do colorectal cancer patients rate their GP: a mixed methods study.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Robot-assisted low anterior resection after aluminum potassium sulfate and tannic acid sclerosing therapy for internal hemorrhoids.Surgical case reports · 2019Article
- Anal fissures.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019Review
- Impact of Patient Gender and Race and Physician Communication on Colorectal Cancer Diagnostic Visits in Primary Care.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2019Article
- Rectal bleeding in general practice: new guidance on commissioning.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine patient and medical characteristics which predict a missed diagnostic opportunity (MDO) for colorectal cancer (CRC).
methodsThe sample consisted of 252 patients diagnosed with Stages 1-4 CRC who were diagnosed in the prior six months, had experienced symptoms prior to diagnosis, and were not diagnosed through routine screening. Systematic review of all medical records prior to patients' diagnosis was conducted. An MDO was defined as a clinical encounter where, even in the presence of presumptive CRC symptoms, the CRC diagnostic process is not started.
results92 patients (36.5%) experienced an MDO. Almost 80% of alternate diagnoses were other GI-GU diseases, including hemorrhoids and diverticulitis. Stomach pain, anemia, and constipation were the most common symptoms experienced by the MDO group. These symptoms, and weight loss and vomiting, were more likely to be noted in the charts of the MDO patients (P < 0.04). Independent risk factors for MDO included age (<50) [OR = 2.29 (1.14-4.60), P = 0.02] and female sex [OR = 2.19 (1.16-4.16), P = 0.03]. Each additional physician seen, more than doubled the MDO risk [OR = 2.05 (1.53-2.74), P < 0.001].
conclusionsFemales, younger patients, and those consulting more physicians were all more likely to experience an MDO. Continued increased training of physicians to enhance knowledge of who is vulnerable to CRC is needed in addition to an increased focus to adherence to screening recommendations.
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.