Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27025558›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2016

Tumour stage and implementation of standardised cancer patient pathways: a comparative cohort study.

Henry Jensen, Marie Louise Tørring, Morten Fenger-Grøn, Frede Olesen, Jens Overgaard, Peter Vedsted

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Henry JensenResearch Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care, Research Unit for General Practice and Section for General Medical Practice, Department of Public Health;
Marie Louise TørringResearch Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care, Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health; Department of Anthropology, School of Culture and Society;
Morten Fenger-GrønResearch Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care, Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Frede OlesenResearch Centre for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care, Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Jens OvergaardDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Peter VedstedDepartment of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKAarhus University Hospital · DKCenter for Cancer Research · USSociety of General Internal Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSome European countries have introduced standardised cancer patient pathways (CPPs), including urgent referrals, with the aim of diagnosing cancer at an earlier stage. This is despite a lack of evidence, particularly in patients with symptomatic cancer diagnosed via general practice.

aimTo compare tumour stages in patients with incident cancer diagnosed via general practice before, during, and after CPP implementation in Denmark in 2008-2009. DESIGN AND

settingA comparative cohort study of data from GPs and registries on patients with incident cancer listed with a GP before (n = 1420), during (n = 5272), and after (n = 2988) CPP implementation.

methodχ(2) test was used to compare stage distributions and logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) of having local cancer after versus before CPP implementation.

resultsDistribution of tumour stages did not differ statistically significantly across time (P = 0.494) or between CPP use (P = 0.202). For all cancers combined, the OR of having local cancer after CPP implementation was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73 to 1.06) compared with before. For CPP-referred patients, the OR of having local cancer was 0.77 (95% CI = 0.62 to 0.94) compared with all patients before CPP implementation; the corresponding OR for non-CPP-referred patients was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.80 to 1.14).

conclusionNo clear tendencies were observed confirming earlier detection of cancer after rather than before CPP implementation. CPP-referred patients had lower odds of having local cancer after CPP implementation than all patients before CPP implementation; this could be because the GPs refer patients who are 'more ill' as urgent referrals.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsCohort StudiesDenmarkGeneral PracticeHumansNeoplasm StagingPractice Patterns, Physicians'Quality of Health CareReferral and ConsultationRegistriesTime-to-TreatmentcancerDenmarkearly diagnosisgeneral practicetumour stageurgent referral

Identifiers

PMID27025558
PMCPMC4871309
OpenAlexW2328233481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.