SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019
Decision support tools to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 44 papers, 10 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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of computerised clinical decision support systems: an overview of reviews.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Enabling digital multifactorial risk assessment in primary care: an umbrella review and recommendations for design and implementation.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Pooled it
- Pancreatic Cancer Risk Assessment Tools in Primary Care: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Failure to follow up abnormal test results associated with cervical cancer in primary and ambulatory care: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Risk of cancer in individuals with Lynch-like syndrome and their families: a systematic review.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Delayed or failure to follow-up abnormal breast cancer screening mammograms in primary care: a systematic review.BMC cancer · 2021Pooled 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
- 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
- Exploring primary care providers' perspectives on clinical decision support for venous thromboembolism diagnosis: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Piloting a Clinical Decision Support System for Unintended Weight Loss in Primary Care: Mixed Methods Study on Early Cancer Detection.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Educational Interventions to Reduce Cancer Diagnostic Delays in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Review
- 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
- Article
- Clinical Decision Support Tool for Early Pancreatic Cancer Detection in Primary Care: Simulation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Evaluating a Clinical Decision Support Tool for Cancer Risk Assessment in Primary Care: Simulation Study of Unintended Weight Loss.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Cataloguing and evaluating Irish health data resources for primary care cancer research.BJC reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnosis of cancer in primary care is complex and challenging. Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) have been proposed as an approach to improve GP decision making, but no systematic review has examined their role in cancer diagnosis.
aimTo investigate whether eCDSTs improve diagnostic decision making for cancer in primary care and to determine which elements influence successful implementation. DESIGN AND
settingA systematic review of relevant studies conducted worldwide and published in English between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2018.
methodPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and a consultation of reference lists and citation tracking was carried out. Exclusion criteria included the absence of eCDSTs used in asymptomatic populations, and studies that did not involve support delivered to the GP. The most relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were applied according to study design of the included paper.
resultsOf the nine studies included, three showed improvements in decision making for cancer diagnosis, three demonstrated positive effects on secondary clinical or health service outcomes such as prescribing, quality of referrals, or cost-effectiveness, and one study found a reduction in time to cancer diagnosis. Barriers to implementation included trust, the compatibility of eCDST recommendations with the GP's role as a gatekeeper, and impact on workflow.
conclusioneCDSTs have the capacity to improve decision making for a cancer diagnosis, but the optimal mode of delivery remains unclear. Although such tools could assist GPs in the future, further well-designed trials of all eCDSTs are needed to determine their cost-effectiveness and the most appropriate implementation methods.
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.