Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28327100›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2017

Impact of a continuing medical education meeting on the use and timing of urgent cancer referrals among general practitioners - a before-after study.

Berit Skjødeberg Toftegaard, Flemming Bro, Alina Zalounina Falborg, Peter Vedsted

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02069470 (The Effect of Continuing Medical Education), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT02069470 nacompletednot on this map

The Effect of Continuing Medical Education (CME) on Early Cancer Diagnosis in General Practice

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of AarhusRan2012 to 2016Enrolled689ConditionsCancerArmsContinuing Medical Education
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Educational Interventions to Reduce Cancer Diagnostic Delays in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Review
  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

4 authors.

Berit Skjødeberg ToftegaardResearch Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, Aarhus, DK-8000, Denmark. berit.toftegaard@feap.dk.
Flemming BroResearch Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, Aarhus, DK-8000, Denmark.
Alina Zalounina FalborgResearch Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, Aarhus, DK-8000, Denmark.
Peter VedstedResearch Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, Aarhus, DK-8000, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetection of cancer in general practice is challenging because symptoms are diverse. Even so-called alarm symptoms have low positive predictive values of cancer. Nevertheless, appropriate referral is crucial. As 85% of cancer patients initiate their cancer diagnostic pathway in general practice, a Continuing Medical Education meeting (CME-M) in early cancer diagnosis was launched in Denmark in 2012. We aimed to investigate the effect of the CME-M on the primary care interval, patient contacts with general practice and use of urgent cancer referrals.

methodsA before-after study was conducted in the Central Denmark Region included 396 general practices, which were assigned to one of eight geographical clusters. Practices were invited to participate in the CME-M with three-week intervals between clusters. Based on register data, we calculated urgent referral rates and patient contacts with general practice before referral. Information about primary care intervals was collected by requesting general practitioners to complete a one-page form for each urgent referral during an 8-month period around the time of the CME-Ms. CME-M practices were compared with non-participating reference practices by analysing before-after differences.

resultsForty percent of all practices participated in the CME-M. There was a statistically significant reduction in the number of total contacts with general practice from urgently referred patients in the month preceding the referral and an increase in the proportion of patients who waited 14 days or more in general practice from the reported date of symptom presentation to the referral date from before to after the CME-M in the CME-M group compared to the reference group.

conclusionsWe found a reduced number of total patient contacts with general practice within the month preceding an urgent referral and an increase in the reported primary care intervals of urgently referred patients in the CME-M group. The trend towards higher urgent referral rates and longer primary care intervals may suggest raised awareness of unspecific cancer symptoms, which could cause the GP to register an earlier date of first symptom presentation. The standardised CME-M may contribute to optimising the timing and the use of urgent cancer referral.

trial registrationNCT02069470 on ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrospectively registered, 1/29/2014.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEarly Detection of CancerReferral and ConsultationAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolControlled Before-After StudiesDenmarkEducation, Medical, ContinuingFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansIncidenceBehavioural changeContinuing medical education meetingDenmarkDiagnosisEarly detection of cancerGeneral practicePrimary care intervalReferral rateUse of health care

Identifiers

PMID28327100
PMCPMC5361715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.