Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27447931›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Variation in Direct Access to Tests to Investigate Cancer: A Survey of English General Practitioners.

Brian D Nicholson, Jason L Oke, Peter W Rose, David Mant

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Detecting ovarian cancer in primary care: can we do better?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Community diagnostic centres: bringing diagnostics closer to home.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. GPs' use of gut feelings when assessing cancer risk: a qualitative study in UK primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors.

Brian D NicholsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX26GG, United Kingdom.
Jason L OkeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX26GG, United Kingdom.
Peter W RoseNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX26GG, United Kingdom.
David MantNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX26GG, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 19383
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 2015 NICE guidelines for suspected cancer recommend that English General Practitioners have direct access to diagnostic tests to investigate symptoms of cancer that do not meet the criteria for urgent referral. We aimed to identify the proportion of GPs in England with direct access to these tests.

methodsWe recruited 533 English GPs through a national clinical research network to complete an online survey about direct access to laboratory, radiology, and endoscopy tests in the three months leading up to the release of the 2015 NICE guidance. If they had direct access to a diagnostic test, GPs were asked about the time necessary to arrange a test and receive a report. Results are reported by NHS sub-region and, adjusting for sampling, for England as a whole.

resultsAlmost all GPs reported direct access to x-ray and laboratory investigations except faecal occult blood testing (54%, 95% CI 49-59%) and urine protein electrophoresis (89%, 95% CI 84-92%). Fewer GPs had direct access to CT scans (54%, 95% CI 49-59%) or endoscopy (colonoscopy 32%, 95% CI 28-37%; gastroscopy 72%, 95% CI 67-77%). There was significant variation in direct access between NHS regions for the majority of imaging tests-for example, from 20 to 85% to MRI. Apart from x-ray, very few GPs (1-22%) could access radiology and endoscopy within the timescales recommended by NICE. The modal request to test time was 2-4 weeks for routine radiology and 4-6 weeks for routine endoscopy with results taking another 1-2 weeks.

conclusionAt the time that the 2015 NICE guideline was released, local investment was required to not only provide direct access but also reduce the interval between request and test and speed up reporting. Further research using our data as a benchmark is now required to identify whether local improvements in direct access have been achieved in response to the NICE targets. If alternative approaches to test access are to be proposed they must be piloted comprehensively and underpinned by robust effectiveness data.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineGeneral PractitionersEnglandHealth Services AccessibilityHumansNeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27447931
PMCPMC4957804

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.