Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31431191›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2019

Direct access CT for suspicion of brain tumour: an analysis of referral pathways in a population-based patient group.

K Zienius, Ip Chak-Lam, J Park, M Ozawa, W Hamilton, D Weller, D Summers, L Porteous, S Mohiuddin, E Keeney and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

K ZieniusTranslational Neurosurgery, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Ip Chak-LamUniversity of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, UK.
J ParkUniversity of Edinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, UK.
M OzawaPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
W HamiltonCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
D WellerUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
D SummersDepartment of Neuroradiology, NHS Lothian, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
L PorteousNorth Berwick Group Practice, North Berwick, East Lothian, UK.
S MohiuddinPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
E KeeneyPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
W HollingworthPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Y Ben-ShlomoPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
R GrantDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, NHS Lothian, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
P M BrennanTranslational Neurosurgery, Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. paul.brennan@ed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7347-830X
University of Bristol · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBNHS Lothian · GBR&G Associates · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrain tumour patients see their primary care doctor on average three or more times before diagnosis, so there may be an opportunity to identify 'at risk' patients earlier. Suspecting a brain tumour diagnosis is difficult because brain tumour-related symptoms are typically non-specific.

methodsWe explored the predictive value of referral guidelines (Kernick and NICE 2005) for brain imaging where a tumour is suspected, in a population-based patient group referred for direct access CT of the head. A consensus panel reviewed whether non-tumour findings were clinically important or whether further investigation was necessary.

resultsOver a 5-year period, 3257 head scans were performed; 318 scans were excluded according to pre-specified criteria. 53 patients (1.8%) were reported to have intracranial tumours, of which 42 were significant (diagnostic yield of 1.43%). There were no false negative CT scans for tumour. With symptom-based referral guidelines primary care doctors can identify patients with a 3% positive predictive value (PPV). 559 patients had non-tumour findings, 31% of which were deemed clinically significant. In 34% of these 559 patients, referral for further imaging and/or specialist assessment from primary care was still thought warranted.

conclusionExisting referral guidelines are insufficient to stratify patients adequately based on their symptoms, according to the likelihood that a tumour will be found on brain imaging. Identification of non-tumour findings may be significant for patients and earlier specialist input into interpretation of these images may be beneficial. Improving guidelines to better identify patients at risk of a brain tumour should be a priority, to improve speed of diagnosis, and reduce unnecessary imaging and costs. Future guidelines may incorporate groups of symptoms, clinical signs and tests to improve the predictive value.

Indexed as

NeuroimagingReferral and ConsultationTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultBrain cancerBrain tumorCT scanEarly diagnosis of cancerGeneral practicePrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID31431191
PMCPMC6702708
OpenAlexW2969475692

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.