Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27458007›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2016

Improving early diagnosis of symptomatic cancer.

Willie Hamilton, Fiona M Walter, Greg Rubin, Richard D Neal

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic Risk Prediction Models for Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. 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
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Willie HamiltonUniversity of Exeter, College House, St Luke's Campus, Exeter EX2 4TE, UK.
Fiona M WalterDepartment of Public Health &Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK.
Greg RubinSchool of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Wolfson Building, Queen's Campus, University of Durham, Stockton-on-Tees TS17 6BH, UK.
Richard D NealNorth Wales Centre for Primary Care Research, Bangor University, Gwenfro Unit 5, Wrexham Technology Park, Wrexham LL13 7YP, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much time, effort and investment goes into the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, with the expectation that this approach brings clinical benefits. This investment of resources has been particularly noticeable in the UK, which has, for several years, appeared near the bottom of international league tables for cancer survival in economically developed countries. In this Review, we examine expedited diagnosis of cancer from four perspectives. The first relates to the potential for clinical benefits of expedited diagnosis of symptomatic cancer. Limited evidence from clinical trials is available, but the considerable observational evidence suggests benefits can be obtained from this approach. The second perspective considers how expedited diagnosis can be achieved. We concentrate on data from the UK, where extensive awareness campaigns have been conducted, and initiatives in the primary-care setting, including clinical decision support, have all occurred during a period of considerable national policy change. The third section considers the most appropriate patients for cancer investigations, and the possible community settings for identification of such patients; UK national guidance for selection of patients for investigation is discussed. Finally, the health economics of expedited diagnosis are reviewed, although few studies provide definitive evidence on this topic.

Indexed as

Costs and Cost AnalysisDecision Support Systems, ClinicalEarly Detection of CancerHealth PolicyHealth PromotionHumansMedical OveruseNeoplasmsPatient SelectionPrimary Health CareRisk AssessmentSurvival AnalysisTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID27458007

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.