ArticlePloS one2016
Variation in Direct Access to Tests to Investigate Cancer: A Survey of English General Practitioners.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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 · 2018Pooled it
- Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- Primary Care System Factors and Clinical Decision-making in Patients that Could Have Lung Cancer: a Vignette Study in Five Balkan Region Countries.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2022Article
- Community diagnostic centres: bringing diagnostics closer to home.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
- Article
- Recognising Colorectal Cancer in Primary Care.Advances in therapy · 2021Article
- 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 · 2021Article
- Time from presentation to pre-diagnostic chest X-ray in patients with symptomatic lung cancer: a cohort study using electronic patient records from English primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
- Experience of adopting faecal immunochemical testing to meet the NICE colorectal cancer referral criteria for low-risk symptomatic primary care patients in Oxfordshire, UK.Frontline gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.