Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27456975›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2016

Does an increase in visits to general practice indicate a malignancy?

Johannes Hauswaldt, Eva Hummers-Pradier, Wolfgang Himmel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Johannes HauswaldtDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany. johannes.hauswaldt@med.uni-goettingen.de.ORCID 0000-0001-5024-9259
Eva Hummers-PradierDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2707-6067
Wolfgang HimmelDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3523-5486
University of Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn increase in a patient's visits to doctors usually raises concerns and may be a 'red flag' for a patient's deterioration of health. The aim of this study was to analyze whether an increase of patient-physician contacts is a first sign of a malignancy in a patient's near future.

methodsThis is a retrospective case-control study. From 153 German general practices' electronic patient records (EPR), cases with at least one new malignancy diagnosis and no-malignancy controls were matched for gender and age. We calculated (1) the number of contacts in the first quarter up to the sixth quarter before a malignancy diagnosis was made and (2) the inter-contact interval (ICI), i.e. the time lag between two consecutive patient-physician contacts measured in days. Differences between cases and controls were investigated in several analyses of variance, with group and time as main factors.

resultsA total of 3,310 cases and 3,310 controls could be included. The number of contacts for cases in the six quarters before a malignancy diagnosis increased from 4.8 contacts (SD 4.3) to 5.5 contacts (SD 4.8). The number of contacts for controls increased only marginally from 4.3 contacts (SD 3.6) to 4.5 (SD 4.2). The factor 'group' (cases vs. controls) was highly significant in the analyses of variance, also 'time' and the interaction 'group * time'. The effect size, however, was very small (R(2) being less than 0.02), which is the equivalent for about one additional contact per quarter in cases directly before a newly made malignancy diagnosis.

conclusionAn increase in contact frequency is a call for GPs to become more attentive towards these patients. It may raise the suspicion of an impending serious disease but the increase is not so dramatic and unique that it can be interpreted a reliable sign of a malignant diagnosis.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesFemaleGeneral PracticeGermanyHumansMaleNeoplasmsOffice VisitsRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsAppointment and schedulesCancerEarly diagnosisFamily practiceOffice visits

Identifiers

PMID27456975
PMCPMC4960682
OpenAlexW2476085062

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.