ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019
Availability and use of cancer decision-support tools: a cross-sectional survey of UK primary care.
Article 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 38 papers, 6 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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Why aren't they used? Systematic review of barriers to implementation of clinical decision support systems for early cancer detection in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Pooled it
- The implementation challenge of computerised clinical decision support systems for the detection of disease in primary care: systematic review and recommendations.Implementation science : IS · 2025Pooled it
- Pancreatic Cancer Risk Assessment Tools in Primary Care: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Factors shaping the implementation and use of Clinical Cancer Decision Tools by GPs in primary care: a qualitative framework synthesis.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Development, validation and effectiveness of diagnostic prediction tools for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Understanding the role of GPs' gut feelings in diagnosing cancer in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing evidence.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Pooled it
- Implementation of a Quality Improvement and Clinical Decision Support Tool for Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care: Process Evaluation.JMIR cancer · 2025Trial
- Electronic clinical decision support tool for assessing stomach symptoms in primary care (ECASS): a feasibility study.BMJ open · 2021Trial
- Piloting a Clinical Decision Support System for Unintended Weight Loss in Primary Care: Mixed Methods Study on Early Cancer Detection.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- What matters most may be workflow, not cancer type.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Clinical Decision Support Tool for Early Pancreatic Cancer Detection in Primary Care: Simulation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating a Clinical Decision Support Tool for Cancer Risk Assessment in Primary Care: Simulation Study of Unintended Weight Loss.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- A machine learning tool for identifying metastatic colorectal cancer in primary care.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Models for predicting risk of endometrial cancer: a systematic review.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2025Article
- Clinical decision making and risk appraisal using electronic risk assessment tools for cancer diagnosis: a qualitative study of GP experiences.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Adoption, acceptance, and use of a decision support tool to promote timely investigations for cancer in primary care.Family practice · 2024Article
- Where do UK clinicians find information at the point of care? A pragmatic, exploratory study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Identification of a serum proteomic biomarker panel using diagnosis specific ensemble learning and symptoms for early pancreatic cancer detection.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Patient preferences for investigating cancer-related symptoms in Australian general practice: a discrete-choice experiment.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision-support tools quantify the risk of undiagnosed cancer in symptomatic patients, and may help GPs when making referrals.
aimTo quantify the availability and use of cancer decision-support tools (QCancer DESIGN AND
settingA cross-sectional postal survey in UK primary care.
methodsOut of 975 UK randomly selected general practices, 4600 GPs and registrars were invited to participate. Outcome measures included the proportions of UK general practices where cancer decision-support tools are available and at least one GP uses the tool. Weighted least-squares linear regression with robust errors tested the association between tool availability and number of 2WW referrals, adjusting for practice size, sex, age, and Index of Multiple Deprivation.
resultsIn total, 476 GPs in 227 practices responded (response rates: practitioner, 10.3%; practice, 23.3%). At the practice level, 83/227 (36.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 30.3 to 43.1) practices had at least one GP or registrar with access to cancer decision-support tools. Tools were available and likely to be used in 38/227 (16.7%, 95% CI = 12.1 to 22.2) practices. In subgroup analyses of 172 English practices, there was no difference in mean 2WW referral rate between practices with tools and those without (mean adjusted difference in referrals per 100 000: 3.1, 95% CI = -5.5 to 11.7).
conclusionThis is the first survey of cancer decision-support tool availability and use. It suggests that the tools are an underused resource in the UK. Given the cost of cancer investigation, a randomised controlled trial of such clinical decision-support aids would be appropriate.
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.