ReviewBritish dental journal2019
A review of the electronic two-week rule referrals for head and neck cancer to Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
Review in British dental journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of guidelines from health technology assessment organizations in community-based primary care: a systematic mixed studies review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Pooled it
- Exploring confidence in recognizing oral cancer among dentists and dental students.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The two-week rule (2WR) for referring suspected malignancies aims to improve access and outcomes for cancer patients. However, there has been criticism of the rule in the literature. GDPs have an important role in spotting head and neck cancer (HNC) and using the 2WR appropriately to ensure their patients get fast and effective treatment.Aims 1) To evaluate adherence to guidelines of electronic 2WR referrals for HNC sent to Western Sussex Hospitals Trust from GDPs in Sussex; 2) to determine the detection rate of oral malignancies from these referrals; 3) to determine the success of the maxillofacial unit in seeing referred patients within two weeks.Materials and methods Two hundred and nineteen randomised electronic 2WR referrals were analysed for adherence to the guidelines for referral of suspected oral cancer. Patient waiting times, subsequent correspondence and pathology results were analysed.Results One hundred and thirty-five referrals (62%) were deemed to be compliant with the NICE NG12 guidelines, while 186 referred patients (85%) were seen within the two-week time frame. Six referrals (2%) resulted in a positive detection of malignancy (a lower rate compared to similar previous studies).Discussion There are several possible reasons for the poor rate of guideline adherence from GDPs, such as pressure to refer defensively and a lack of knowledge of referral guidelines or oral pathology. This may contribute to a poor detection rate, although there may be other contributing factors.Conclusions Thirty-eight percent of electronic 2WR referrals from GDPs were deemed inappropriate; ongoing education is required to minimise these inappropriate referrals. Patients must be made aware of the reason for their referral to promote attendance. Further studies are required to identify the reasons for such a low detection rate.
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.