Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27784334›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2016

The effect of the 2-week wait referral system on the detection of and mortality from colorectal cancer: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ella Mozdiak, Alexander Tsertsvadze, Michael McFarlane, Monika Widlak, Maria Tabuso, Amber Dunlop, Ramesh Arasaradnam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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

7 authors.

Ella MozdiakDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK. ella.mozdiak@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0001-9045-4716
Alexander TsertsvadzeCommunicable Disease Control Epidemiology and Evidence, Populations, Evidence and Technologies, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Michael McFarlaneDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK.
Monika WidlakDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK.
Maria TabusoDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK.
Amber DunlopUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK.
Ramesh ArasaradnamDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer represents the fourth most common cancer in England and Wales; survival is high for early stage disease but declines sharply with advanced stage. UK figures suggest that cancer survival rates are lower than those of other Western European countries. Current 5-year survival is around 50 %. A rapid access strategy was introduced through the Department of Health in 2000. This 2-week wait (TWW) referral pathway was devised to streamline referral for suspected cancer, allow diagnosis at an earlier stage, reduce cancer survival inequality and reduce cancer-related mortality. However, only around half of patients with colorectal cancer have symptoms that fit the TWW criteria plus there is a fourfold difference in referral rates across England and Wales. High-quality evidence of TWW outcome measures for colorectal cancer is lacking. This systematic review will collate and evaluate the latest evidence on colorectal cancer detection rate, stage at diagnosis and mortality.

methodsEnglish-language publications from 2000 reporting outcomes on the TWW referral system for suspected colorectal cancer will be eligible for inclusion. Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE via PubMed, NHS Evidence, Trip and the British Library Catalogue databases will be searched. Two paired reviewers will independently screen all titles/abstracts and full text for eligibility, then extract data and assess for bias using standardised formats. They will hand review reference lists of eligible articles. Disagreement will be resolved via third party adjudication. Summary effect measures for post-referral diagnosis and mortality rates will be calculated and expressed as relative risk, hazard rate ratio or risk difference with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals. Where possible summary effect measures will be pooled, heterogeneity and its extent for pooled estimates will be assessed via visual inspection of forest plots and explored via sub-group analysis. DISCUSSION: In this systematic review, we aim to summarise the relevant evidence on cancer detection rate, cancer stage at diagnosis and disease-related mortality rates for patients with suspected colorectal cancer investigated through the TWW referral system in England and Wales. We will highlight gaps in the evidence and provide a better understanding of whether it is meeting its desired effect. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016037368.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityReferral and ConsultationClinical ProtocolsColorectal NeoplasmsHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignRisk AssessmentSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID27784334
PMCPMC5081696

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.