Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31015558›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2019

Predictive value of inflammatory markers for cancer diagnosis in primary care: a prospective cohort study using electronic health records.

Jessica Watson, Chris Salisbury, Jonathan Banks, Penny Whiting, Willie Hamilton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Decision support tools for pancreatic cancer detection: external validation in Australian primary care - a retrospective cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Jessica WatsonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. jessica.watson@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8177-6438
Chris SalisburyPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jonathan BanksPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Penny WhitingPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Willie HamiltonUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK (CRUK) C8640/A23385Department of Health DRF-2016-09-034DH | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) DRF-2016-09-034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly identification of cancer in primary care is important and challenging. This study examined the diagnostic utility of inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and plasma viscosity) for cancer diagnosis in primary care.

methodsCohort study of 160,000 patients with inflammatory marker testing in 2014, plus 40,000 untested matched controls, using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), with Cancer Registry linkage. Primary outcome was one-year cancer incidence.

resultsPrimary care patients with a raised inflammatory marker have a one-year cancer incidence of 3.53% (95% CI 3.37-3.70), compared to 1.50% (1.43-1.58) in those with normal inflammatory markers, and 0.97% (0.87-1.07) in untested controls. Cancer risk is greater with higher inflammatory marker levels, with older age and in men; risk rises further when a repeat test is abnormal but falls if it normalises. Men over 50 and women over 60 with raised inflammatory markers have a cancer risk which exceeds the 3% NICE threshold for urgent investigation. Sensitivities for cancer were 46.1% for CRP, 43.6% ESR and 49.7% for PV.

conclusionCancer should be considered in patients with raised inflammatory markers. However, inflammatory markers have a poor sensitivity for cancer and are therefore not useful as 'rule-out' test.

Indexed as

Blood SedimentationBlood ViscosityElectronic Health RecordsPrimary Health CareAdultAgedAge FactorsBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsProspective StudiesBiomarkersC-Reactive Protein

Identifiers

PMID31015558
PMCPMC6738065

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.