Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31471440›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

The usefulness of symptoms alone or combined for general practitioners in considering the diagnosis of a brain tumour: a case-control study using the clinical practice research database (CPRD) (2000-2014).

Mio Ozawa, Paul M Brennan, Karolis Zienius, Kathreena M Kurian, William Hollingworth, David Weller, Robin Grant, Willie Hamilton, Yoav Ben-Shlomo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors.

Mio OzawaPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Paul M BrennanDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
Karolis ZieniusDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
Kathreena M KurianPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
William HollingworthPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
David WellerGeneral Practice, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Robin GrantCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Willie HamiltonPrimary Care Diagnostics, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Yoav Ben-ShlomoPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Y.Ben-Shlomo@bristol.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the utility of different symptoms, alone or combined, presented to primary care for an adult brain tumour diagnosis. DESIGN AND

settingMatched case-control study, using the data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2000-2014) from primary care consultations in the UK.

methodAll presentations within 6 months of the index diagnosis date (cases) or equivalent (controls) were coded into 32 symptom groups. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs) and positive likelihood ratios were calculated for symptoms and combinations of symptoms with headache and cognitive features. Diagnostic odds ratios were calculated using conditional logistic regression, adjusted for age group, sex and Charlson comorbidity. Stratified analyses were performed for age group, sex and whether the tumour was of primary or secondary origin.

resultsWe included 8,184 cases and 28,110 controls. Seizure had the highest PPV of 1.6% (95% CI 1.4% to 1.7%) followed by weakness 1.5% (1.3 to 1.7) and confusion 1.4% (1.3 to 1.5). Combining headache with other symptoms increased the PPV. For example, headache plus combined cognitive symptoms PPV 7.2% (6.0 to 8.6); plus weakness 4.4% (3.2 to 6.2), compared with headache alone PPV 0.1%. The diagnostic ORs were generally larger for patients <70 years; this was most marked for confusion, seizure and visual symptoms.

conclusionWe found seizure, weakness and confusion had relatively higher predictive values than many other symptoms. Headache on its own was a weak predictor but this was enhanced when combined with other symptoms especially in younger patients. Clinicians need to actively search for other neurological symptoms such as cognitive problems.

Indexed as

General PractitionersSymptom AssessmentAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesCognition DisordersConfusionDatabases, FactualFemaleHeadacheHumansLikelihood FunctionsMalebrain tumourclinical practice research datalinkdiagnosisneurological oncologyprimary caresymptoms

Identifiers

PMID31471440
PMCPMC6720478

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.