Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30462699›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Is symptom-based diagnosis of lung cancer possible? A systematic review and meta-analysis of symptomatic lung cancer prior to diagnosis for comparison with real-time data from routine general practice.

Grace N Okoli, Olga Kostopoulou, Brendan C Delaney

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Grace N OkoliClinical Lecturer in Primary Care, School of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1740-4058
Olga KostopoulouReader in Medical Decision Making, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London, United Kingdom.
Brendan C DelaneyChair in Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Imperial College London, Department of Surgery and Cancer, St Mary's Campus, London, United Kingdom.
Imperial College London · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17871Cancer Research UK 25310Cancer Research UK C33754/A17871
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLung cancer is a good example of the potential benefit of symptom-based diagnosis, as it is the commonest cancer worldwide, with the highest mortality from late diagnosis and poor symptom recognition. The diagnosis and risk assessment tools currently available have been shown to require further validation. In this study, we determine the symptoms associated with lung cancer prior to diagnosis and demonstrate that by separating prior risk based on factors such as smoking history and age, from presenting symptoms and combining them at the individual patient level, we can make greater use of this knowledge to create a practical framework for the symptomatic diagnosis of individual patients presenting in primary care.

aimTo provide an evidence-based analysis of symptoms observed in lung cancer patients prior to diagnosis. DESIGN AND

settingSystematic review and meta-analysis of primary and secondary care data.

methodSeven databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Health Management Information Consortium, Web of Science, British Nursing Index and Cochrane Library). Thirteen studies were selected based on predetermined eligibility and quality criteria for diagnostic assessment to establish the value of symptom-based diagnosis using diagnosistic odds ratio (DOR) and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. In addition, routinely collated real-time data from primary care electronic health records (EHR), TransHis, was analysed to compare with our findings.

resultsHaemoptysis was found to have the greatest diagnostic value for lung cancer, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 6.39 (3.32-12.28), followed by dyspnoea 2.73 (1.54-4.85) then cough 2.64 (1.24-5.64) and lastly chest pain 2.02 (0.88-4.60). The use of symptom-based diagnosis to accurately diagnose lung cancer cases from non-cases was determined using the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve, the area under the curve (AUC) was consistently above 0.6 for each of the symptoms described, indicating reasonable discriminatory power. The positive predictive value (PPV) of diagnostic symptoms depends on an individual's prior risk of lung cancer, as well as their presenting symptom pattern. For at risk individuals we calculated prior risk using validated epidemiological models for risk factors such as age and smoking history, then combined with the calculated likelihood ratios for each symptom to establish posterior risk or positive predictive value (PPV).

conclusionOur findings show that there is diagnostic value in the clinical symptoms associated with lung cancer and the potential benefit of characterising these symptoms using routine data studies to identify high-risk patients.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleReferral and ConsultationRisk FactorsSymptom Assessment

Identifiers

PMID30462699
PMCPMC6248994
OpenAlexW2901526647

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.