Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30052877›Full record

SynthesisFamily practice2019

General practitioner referrals to one-stop clinics for symptoms that could be indicative of cancer: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes.

Claire Friedemann Smith, Alice Tompson, Gea A Holtman, Clare Bankhead, Fergus Gleeson, Daniel Lasserson, Brian D Nicholson

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. One-Stop-Shop Cancer Screening Clinic: Acceptability Testing.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The elusive diagnosis of cancer: testing times.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Claire Friedemann SmithNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Alice TompsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gea A HoltmanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Clare BankheadNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Fergus GleesonDepartment of Radiology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Daniel LassersonInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Brian D NicholsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 19383
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne-stop clinics provide comprehensive diagnostic testing in one outpatient appointment. They could benefit patients with conditions, such as cancer, whose outcomes are improved by early diagnosis, and bring efficiency savings for health systems.

objectiveTo assess the use and outcomes of one-stop clinics for symptoms where cancer is a possible diagnosis. DESIGN AND

settingSystematic review of studies reporting use and outcomes of one-stop clinics in primary care patients.

methodWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies assessing one-stop clinics for adults referred after presenting to primary care with any symptom that could be indicative of cancer. Study selection was carried out independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved through discussion.

resultsTwenty-nine studies were identified, most were conducted in the UK and observational in design. Few included a comparison arm. A pooled comparison of the cancer conversion rate of one-stop and multi-stop clinics was only possible for breast symptoms, and we found no significant difference. One-stop clinics were associated with significant reductions in the interval from referral to testing (15 versus 75 days) and more patients diagnosed on the same day (79% versus 25%) compared to multi-stop pathways. The majority of patients and GPs found one-stop clinics to be acceptable.

conclusionThis review found one-stop clinics were associated with reduced time from referral to testing, increased same day diagnoses, and were acceptable to patients and GPs. Our conclusions are limited by high levels of heterogeneity, scarcity of comparator groups, and the overwhelmingly observational nature of included studies.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerGeneral PractitionersPrimary Health CareHumansNeoplasmsOutcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReferral and ConsultationTime-to-TreatmentCancerdiagnostic testsprimary carereview

Identifiers

PMID30052877
PMCPMC6531891
OpenAlexW2883346095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.