ArticleBMC health services research2017
Factors associated with mode of colorectal cancer detection and time to diagnosis: a population level study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical Delays and Comparative Outcomes in Younger and Older Adults with Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Pooled it
- Time to diagnosis and treatment in younger adults with colorectal cancer: A systematic review.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Trends in colorectal cancer cases at a Mexican secondary-care hospital.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Article
- Improving colorectal cancer in Alberta, Canada: a qualitative study of patients and close contacts' perceptions on diagnosis following an emergency department presentation.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Income differences in time to colon cancer diagnosis.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Improving Care for Older Adults with Cancer in Canada: A Call to Action.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Reduction in the diagnostic interval after the introduction of cancer patient pathways for colorectal cancer in northern Sweden.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2023Article
- Patient and tumour characteristics of screening-age adults diagnosed with screen-detected versus symptomatic colon cancer.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2022Article
- Measurement of clinical delay intervals among younger adults with colorectal cancer using health administrative data: a population-based analysis.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Patient-reported diagnostic intervals to colorectal cancer diagnosis in the Midland region of New Zealand: a prospective cohort study.Family practice · 2022Article
- Delayed Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Alberta: A Framework for Analyzing Barriers to Diagnosis and Generating Evidence to Support Health System Changes Aimed at Reducing Time to Diagnosis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- How do colorectal cancer patients rate their GP: a mixed methods study.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Factors Associated with Time Intervals for Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer: A Hospital Based Study in Khon Kaen, Thailand.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2020Article
- From symptom to cancer diagnosis: Perspectives of patients and family members in Alberta, Canada.PloS one · 2020Article
- Diagnostic errors reported in primary healthcare and emergency departments: A retrospective and descriptive cohort study of 4830 reported cases of preventable harm in Sweden.The European journal of general practice · 2019Article
- Lessons Learned: It Takes a Village to Understand Inter-Sectoral Care Using Administrative Data across Jurisdictions.International journal of population data science · 2018Article
- Possible missed opportunities for diagnosing colorectal cancer in Dutch primary care: a multimethods approach.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
- Article
- Explaining time elapsed prior to cancer diagnosis: patients' perspectives.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough it is well-known that early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is important for optimal patient survival, the relationship of patient and health system factors with delayed diagnosis are unclear. The purpose of this study was to identify the demographic, clinical and healthcare factors related to mode of CRC detection and length of the diagnostic interval.
methodsAll residents of Alberta, Canada diagnosed with first-ever incident CRC in years 2004-2010 were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Population-based administrative health datasets, including hospital discharge abstract, ambulatory care classification system and physician billing data, were used to identify healthcare services related to CRC diagnosis. The time to diagnosis was defined as the time from the first CRC-related healthcare visit to the date of CRC diagnosis. Mode of CRC detection was classified into three groups: urgent, screen-detected and symptomatic. Quantile regression was performed to assess factors associated with time to diagnosis.
results9626 patients were included in the study; 25% of patients presented as urgent, 32% were screen-detected and 43% were symptomatic. The median time to diagnosis for urgent, screen-detected and symptomatic patients were 6 days (interquartile range (IQR) 2-14 days), 74 days (IQR 36-183 days), 84 days (IQR 39-223 days), respectively. Time to diagnosis was greater than 6 months for 27% of non-urgent patients. Healthcare factors had the largest impact on time to diagnosis: 3 or more visits to a GP increased the median by 140 days whereas 2 or more visits to a GI-specialist increased it by 108 days compared to 0-1 visits to a GP or GI-specialist, respectively.
conclusionA large proportion of CRC patients required urgent work-up or had to wait more than 6 months for diagnosis. Actions are needed to reduce the frequency of urgent presentation as well as improve the timeliness of diagnosis. Findings suggest a need to improve coordination of care across multiple providers.
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.