Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30409920›Full record

ReviewJournal of epidemiology and community health2019

Are inequalities in cancer diagnosis through emergency presentation narrowing, widening or remaining unchanged? Longitudinal analysis of English population-based data 2006-2013.

Annie Herbert, Gary A Abel, Sam Winters, Sean McPhail, Lucy Elliss-Brookes, Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Application of a digital quality measure for cancer diagnosis in Epic Cosmos.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Deciphering the Relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Cancer diagnoses after emergency GP referral or A&E attendance in England: determinants and time trends in Routes to Diagnosis data, 2006-2015.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Annie HerbertECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes) Research Group, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.
Gary A AbelUniversity of Exeter Medical School (Primary Care), Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2231-5161
Sam WintersNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, London, UK.
Sean McPhailNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, London, UK.
Lucy Elliss-BrookesNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), Public Health England, London, UK.
Georgios LyratzopoulosECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare and Outcomes) Research Group, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.
Public Health England · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18180Cancer Research UK C18081/A18180Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnosis of cancer through emergency presentation is associated with poorer prognosis. While reductions in emergency presentations have been described, whether known sociodemographic inequalities are changing is uncertain.

methodsWe analysed 'Routes to Diagnosis' data on patients aged ≥25 years diagnosed in England during 2006-2013 with any of 33 common or rarer cancers. Using binary logistic regression we determined time-trends in diagnosis through emergency presentation by age, deprivation and cancer site.

resultsOverall adjusted proportions of emergency presentations decreased during the study period (2006: 23%, 2013: 20%). Substantial baseline (2006) inequalities in emergency presentation risk by age and deprivation remained largely unchanged. There was evidence (p<0.05) of reductions in the risk of emergency presentations for most (28/33) cancer sites, without apparent associations between the size of reduction and baseline risk (p=0.26). If there had been modest reductions in age inequalities (ie, patients in each age group acquiring the same percentage of emergency presentations as the adjacent group with lower risk), in the last study year we could have expected around 11 000 fewer diagnoses through emergency presentation (ie, a nationwide percentage of 16% rather than the observed 20%). For similarly modest reductions in deprivation inequalities, we could have expected around 3000 fewer (ie, 19%).

conclusionThe proportion of cancer diagnoses through emergency presentation is decreasing but age and deprivation inequalities prevail, indicating untapped opportunities for further improvements by reducing these inequalities. The observed reductions in proportions across nearly all cancer sites are likely to reflect both earlier help-seeking and improvements in diagnostic healthcare pathways, across both easier-to-suspect and harder-to-suspect cancers.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overEmergency Service, HospitalEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPrognosisRisk Factorsageingcancerdeprivationinequalities

Identifiers

PMID30409920
PMCPMC6839789
OpenAlexW2899977975

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.