Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30642909›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019

Patient and primary care delays in the diagnostic pathway of gynaecological cancers: a systematic review of influencing factors.

Pauline Williams, Peter Murchie, Christine Bond

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 'I think it is helpful … I mean it's not always helpful' - diagnostic complexity in endometriosis: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Artificial intelligence in gynecologic and obstetric emergencies.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  20. An open structure questionnaire on reasons for delay in presentation: a study of patients attending clinic with red flag symptoms of head and neck cancer.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2020
    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

3 authors.

Pauline WilliamsAcademic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.
Peter MurchieAcademic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.
Christine BondAcademic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CAF/15/03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGynaecological cancers are the second most common female cancer type, with survival rates in the UK lower than in many comparable countries. A potentially important factor in the UK's poorer cancer outcomes is diagnostic delay; gynaecological cancers are the cancer type most likely to be affected by less timely diagnosis.

aimTo examine current evidence for factors that contribute to patient and primary care delays in the diagnostic pathway of gynaecological cancer. DESIGN AND

settingA systematic review of the available literature.

methodPRISMA guidelines were followed. MEDLINE and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library were searched using three terms: primary care; gynaecological cancer; and delay. Citation lists of all identified articles were searched. Two authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of publications. Data extraction was performed by one author and quality assured by a second reviewer in a 20% sample of selected articles. Synthesis was narrative.

resultsA total of 1253 references was identified, of which 37 met the inclusion criteria. Factors associated with delayed diagnosis were categorised as either patient factors (patient demographics, symptoms or knowledge, and presentation to the GP) or primary care factors (doctor factors: patient demographics, symptoms or knowledge, and referral process); and system factors (such as limited access to investigations).

conclusionDelayed diagnosis in the patient and primary care intervals of the diagnostic journey of gynaecological cancer is complex and multifactorial. This review identifies areas of future research that could lead to interventions to enable prompter diagnosis of gynaecological cancers.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareCritical PathwaysDelayed DiagnosisFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansdelayed diagnosisgynaecological cancerprimary health caresystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30642909
PMCPMC6355279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.