ArticleEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2018
How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer.
Article in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of interventions to recognise, refer and diagnose patients with lung cancer symptoms.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2022Pooled it
- The patient, diagnostic, and treatment intervals in adult patients with cancer from high- and lower-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Guideline
- Multilevel factors associated with timeliness of care along the lung cancer care continuum: A systematic review.Journal of the American Pharmacists Association : JAPhAPooled it
- Trial
- Lung cancer care pathways and journeys: insights from patients at the National Cancer Institute in Mexico.BMC global and public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Fusing data from CT deep learning, CT radiomics and peripheral blood immune profiles to diagnose lung cancer in a cohort of patients experiencing symptoms.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- Neglected Occupational Risk Factors-A Contributor to Diagnostic Delays in Lung Cancer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Redefining treatment interval in lung cancer surgery in the era of prehabilitation: a systematic review.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Review
- Article
- Assessing disparities in cancer resources distribution in Mexico.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Treatment delays in patients with lung cancer: a retrospective study conducted at the National Cancer Institute of Mexico between 2004 and 2021.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Optimizing Lung Cancer Diagnostics: Insights from a Fast-Track Program in a Complex Healthcare Setting.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Smoking status, symptom significance and healthcare seeking with lung cancer symptoms in the Danish general population.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Investigating socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer diagnosis, treatment and mortality: an Italian cohort study.BMC public health · 2024Observational
- Review
- Qualitative assessment of expectations on the content, form and way of delivery of a prehabilitation programme in patients with lung resection surgery - A Swiss tertiary centre experience.SAGE open medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Timeliness of Care among Lung Cancer Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Earlier access to lung cancer specialist (LCS) care improves survival, highlighting the need for streamlined patient referral. International guidelines recommend 14-day maximum time intervals from general practitioner (GP) referral to first LCS appointment ("GP-LCS interval"), and diagnosis to treatment ("treatment interval"). We compared time intervals in lung cancer care against timeframe benchmarks, and explored barriers and facilitators to timely care.We conducted a scoping review of literature from MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and hand searches. Primary end-points were GP-LCS and treatment intervals. Performance against guidelines and factors responsible for delays were explored. We used descriptive statistics and nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests to compare intervals in studies reporting fast-track interventions.Of 1343 identified studies, 128 full-text articles were eligible. Only 33 (26%) studies reported GP-LCS intervals, with an overall median of 7 days and distributions largely meeting guidelines. Overall, 52 (41%) studies reported treatment intervals, with a median of 27 days, and distributions of times falling short of guidelines. There was no effect of fast-track interventions on reducing time intervals. Lack of symptoms and multiple procedures or specialist visits were suggested causes for delay.Although most patients with lung cancer see a specialist within a reasonable timeframe, treatment commencement is often delayed. There is regional variation in establishing timeliness of 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.