SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2017
Lung cancer in symptomatic patients presenting in primary care: a systematic review of risk prediction tools.
Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of lung cancer risk prediction models.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Pooled it
- Development, validation and effectiveness of diagnostic prediction tools for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The Generation of a Lung Cancer Health Factor Distribution Using Patient Graphs Constructed From Electronic Medical Records: Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- DNA Repair Biomarker for Lung Cancer Risk and its Correlation With Airway Cells Gene Expression.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2020Article
- Presentation of lung cancer in primary care.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2019Article
- Clinical features of patients with non-metastatic lung cancer in primary care: a case-control study.BJGP open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Around 70% of patients first presenting to specialist care have advanced disease, at which point current treatments have little effect on survival. The issue for primary care is how to recognise patients earlier and investigate appropriately. This requires an assessment of the risk of lung cancer.
aimThe aim of this study was to systematically review the existing risk prediction tools for patients presenting in primary care with symptoms that may indicate lung cancer DESIGN AND
settingSystematic review of primary care data.
methodMedline, PreMedline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ISI Proceedings (1980 to March 2016) were searched. The final list of included studies was agreed between two of the authors, who also appraised and summarised them.
resultsSeven studies with between 1482 and 2 406 127 patients were included. The tools were all based on UK primary care data, but differed in complexity of development, number/type of variables examined/included, and outcome time frame. There were four multivariable tools with internal validation area under the curves between 0.88 and 0.92. The tools all had a number of limitations, and none have been externally validated, or had their clinical and cost impact examined.
conclusionThere is insufficient evidence for the recommendation of any one of the available risk prediction tools. However, some multivariable tools showed promising discrimination. What is needed to guide clinical practice is both external validation of the existing tools and a comparative study, so that the best tools can be incorporated into clinical decision tools used in primary care.
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.