Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28056946›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Factors associated with mode of colorectal cancer detection and time to diagnosis: a population level study.

Khokan C Sikdar, James Dickinson, Marcy Winget

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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 · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 · 2018
    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

3 authors.

Khokan C SikdarCommunity Health Sciences and O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, G 214 HSC, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4N1, Canada. khokan.sikdar@ucalgary.ca.
James DickinsonDepartments of Family Medicine and Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Marcy WingetDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge DistributionAlbertaColorectal NeoplasmsDelayed DiagnosisDelivery of Health CareEarly Detection of CancerEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHealth ServicesHumansMaleMiddle AgedReferral and ConsultationAdministrative dataColorectal cancerDiagnostic delayPrimary health careWait time

Identifiers

PMID28056946
PMCPMC5376684

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.