Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29110698›Full record

Trial reportTrials2017

Impact of radiographer immediate reporting of chest X-rays from general practice on the lung cancer pathway (radioX): study protocol for a randomised control trial.

Nick Woznitza, Anand Devaraj, Samuel M Janes, Stephen W Duffy, Angshu Bhowmik, Susan Rowe, Keith Piper, Sue Maughn, David R Baldwin

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Nick WoznitzaRadiology Department, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK. nicholas.woznitza@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9598-189X
Anand DevarajRadiology Department, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Samuel M JanesLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Stephen W DuffyQueen Mary University London, London, UK.
Angshu BhowmikDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK.
Susan RoweRadiology Department, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK.
Keith PiperSchool of Allied Health Professions, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK.
Sue MaughnCity and Hackney Clinical Commissioning Group, London, UK.
David R BaldwinDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK.
Canterbury Christ Church University · GBHomerton University Hospital · GBBristol Clinical Commissioning Group · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBRoyal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic capacity and suboptimal logistics are consistently identified as barriers to timely diagnosis of cancer, especially lung cancer. Immediate chest X-ray (CXR) reporting for patients referred from general practice is advocated in the National Optimal Lung Cancer Pathway to improve time to diagnosis of lung cancer and to reduce inappropriate urgent respiratory medicine referral for suspected cancer (2WW) referrals. The aim of radioX is to examine the impact of immediate reporting by radiographers of CXRs requested by general practice (GP) on lung cancer patient pathways.

methodsA two-way comparative study that will compare the time to diagnosis of lung cancer for patients. Internal comparison will be made between those who receive an immediate radiographer report of a GP CXR compared to standard radiographer GP CXR reporting over a 12-month period. External comparison will be made with a similar, neighbouring hospital trust that does not have radiographer CXR reporting. Primary outcome is the effect on the speed of the lung cancer pathway (diagnosis of cancer or discharge). Secondary outcomes include the effect of the pathway on efficiency including the number of repeat CXRs performed in a timely fashion for suspected infection and the effect of immediate reporting of GP CXRs on patient satisfaction. DISCUSSION: The radioX trial will examine the hypothesis that immediate reporting of CXRs referred from GP reduces the time to diagnosis of lung cancer or discharge from the lung cancer pathway.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN21818068 . Registered on 20 June 2017.

Indexed as

Critical PathwaysGeneral PracticeRadiography, ThoracicRadiologistsClinical ProtocolsEarly Detection of CancerEnglandHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationLung NeoplasmsPatient Care TeamPatient SatisfactionPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReferral and ConsultationResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID29110698
PMCPMC5674683
OpenAlexW2767715170

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.