Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27416743›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2017

Clinical outcome of head and neck cancer patients: a comparison between ENT patients referred via the 2 weeks wait pathway and alternative routes in the UK health system.

B Y Winson Wong, S Fischer, H E Cruickshank

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The impact of 2 weeks wait referral on survival of head and neck cancer patients.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023
    Article
  4. Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  5. 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.

B Y Winson WongDepartment of ENT, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK. b.y.winson.wong@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6737-6278
S FischerDepartment of ENT, Pinderfields General Hospital, Aberford Road, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, WF1 4DG, UK.
H E CruickshankDepartment of ENT, Pinderfields General Hospital, Aberford Road, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, WF1 4DG, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

2 weeks wait (2ww) referral was intended to improve cancer outcomes in the UK. However, a previous study found that 2ww failed to detect early stage head and neck cancer. There is no current study to examine the survival outcome of head and neck cancer patients diagnosed on 2ww and non-2ww pathways. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of cancer patients diagnosed on these pathways. We performed a retrospective review of head and neck cancer patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2013 in the ENT Department at Mid-Yorkshire NHS Hospitals Trust. Gender, age, disease staging, treatment modalities, route of referrals along with survival data were documented. Survival analysis was performed for 2ww and non-2ww cancer patients. There were 4123 patients referred on 2ww during the study period. 147 patients were diagnosed with cancers on 2ww and 89 patients were diagnosed on non-2ww. There were no statistical differences in clinical staging (p = 0.416) and overall survival (p = 0.376) between 2ww and non-2ww patients. This study failed to demonstrate a better overall survival in head and neck cancer patients diagnosed on 2ww pathway within the ENT cohort. Current referral system needs to be refined to improve the survival outcome in head and neck cancer patients.

Indexed as

OtolaryngologyReferral and ConsultationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomYoung AdultDiagnosisHead and neck cancerReferral guidelinesScreeningSurvivalSuspected cancer

Identifiers

PMID27416743

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.