Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27456325›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2016

An investigation of routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 international jurisdictions, as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: survey development and implementation.

David Weller, Peter Vedsted, Chantelle Anandan, Alina Zalounina, Evangelia Ourania Fourkala, Rakshit Desai, William Liston, Henry Jensen, Andriana Barisic, Anna Gavin and 11 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

21 authors.

David WellerCentre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Peter VedstedDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Chantelle AnandanCentre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Alina ZalouninaDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Evangelia Ourania FourkalaGynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Rakshit DesaiGynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
William ListonGynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Henry JensenDepartment of Public Health, Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Andriana BarisicDepartment of Prevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Anna GavinCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, Belfast, UK.
Eva GrunfeldDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Knowledge Translation Research Network Health Services Research Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mats LambeDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatics, Regional Cancer Center Uppsala and, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rebecca-Jane LawNorth Wales Centre for Primary Care Research, Bangor University, Wrexham, UK.
Martin MalmbergDepartment of Oncology, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Richard D NealNorth Wales Centre for Primary Care Research, Bangor University, Wrexham, UK.
Jatinderpal KalsiGynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Donna TurnerPopulation Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Victoria WhiteCentre for Behavioral Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Martine BombDepartment of Policy and Information, Cancer Research UK, London, UK.
Usha MenonGynaecological Cancer Research Centre, Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3708-1732
ICBP Module 4 Working Group*

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis paper describes the methods used in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 Survey (ICBPM4) which examines time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis in 10 jurisdictions. We present the study design with defining and measuring time intervals, identifying patients with cancer, questionnaire development, data management and analyses. DESIGN AND

settingRecruitment of participants to the ICBPM4 survey is based on cancer registries in each jurisdiction. Questionnaires draw on previous instruments and have been through a process of cognitive testing and piloting in three jurisdictions followed by standardised translation and adaptation. Data analysis focuses on comparing differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis in the jurisdictions.

participantsOur target is 200 patients with symptomatic breast, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer in each jurisdiction. Patients are approached directly or via their primary care physician (PCP). Patients' PCPs and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) are surveyed, and 'data rules' are applied to combine and reconcile conflicting information. Where CTS information is unavailable, audit information is sought from treatment records and databases. MAIN OUTCOMES: Reliability testing of the patient questionnaire showed that agreement was complete (κ=1) in four items and substantial (κ=0.8, 95% CI 0.333 to 1) in one item. The identification of eligible patients is sufficient to meet the targets for breast, lung and colorectal cancer. Initial patient and PCP survey response rates from the UK and Sweden are comparable with similar published surveys. Data collection was completed in early 2016 for all cancer types.

conclusionAn international questionnaire-based survey of patients with cancer, PCPs and CTSs has been developed and launched in 10 jurisdictions. ICBPM4 will help to further understand international differences in cancer survival by comparing time intervals and routes to cancer diagnosis.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPrimary Health CareAnalysis of VarianceAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsAustraliaBenchmarkingBreast NeoplasmsCanadaColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesDenmarkFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsNorwayOvarian Neoplasmsearly detection of cancergeneral practicehealth services researchprimary health caretime factors, diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID27456325
PMCPMC4964239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.