Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31924638›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Cross-sectional study using primary care and cancer registration data to investigate patients with cancer presenting with non-specific symptoms.

Clare Pearson, Veronique Poirier, Karen Fitzgerald, Greg Rubin, Willie Hamilton

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05876676 (Rapid Diagnostic Centre Biomarker Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT05876676 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Rapid Diagnostic Centre Biomarker Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustRan2023 to 2032Enrolled1,000ConditionsCancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Cancer risk in patients with four non-specific symptoms: a decade of research and implications for practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Transforming post pandemic cancer services.British journal of cancer · 2024
    Review
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

5 authors.

Clare PearsonPolicy and Information, Cancer Research UK, London, UK clare.pearson@cancer.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1941-4735
Veronique PoirierPolicy and Information, Cancer Research UK, London, UK.
Karen FitzgeraldPolicy and Information, Cancer Research UK, London, UK.
Greg RubinInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Willie HamiltonPrimary Care, Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatients presenting to primary care with site-specific alarm symptoms can be referred onto urgent suspected cancer pathways, whereas those with non-specific symptoms currently have no dedicated referral routes leading to delays in cancer diagnosis and poorer outcomes. Pilot Multidisciplinary Diagnostic Centres (MDCs) provide a referral route for such patients in England.

objectivesThis work aimed to use linked primary care and cancer registration data to describe diagnostic pathways for patients similar to those being referred into MDCs and compare them to patients presenting with more specific symptoms.

methodsThis cross-sectional study linked primary care data from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) to national cancer registration and Route to Diagnosis records. Patient symptoms recorded in the NCDA were used to allocate patients to one of two groups - those presenting with symptoms mirroring referral criteria of MDCs (non-specific but concerning symptoms (NSCS)) and those with at least one site-specific alarm symptom (non-NSCS). Descriptive analyses compared the two groups and regression analysis by group investigated associations with long primary care intervals (PCIs).

resultsPatients with NSCS were more likely to be diagnosed at later stage (32% stage 4, compared with 21% in non-NSCS) and via an emergency presentation (34% vs 16%). These patients also had more multiple pre-referral general practitioner consultations (59% vs 43%) and primary care-led diagnostics (blood tests: 57% vs 35%). Patients with NSCS had higher odds of having longer PCIs (adjusted OR: 1.24 (1.11 to 1.36)). Patients with lung and urological cancers also had higher odds of longer PCIs overall and in both groups.

conclusionsDifferences in the diagnostic pathway show that patients with symptoms mirroring the MDC referral criteria could benefit from a new referral pathway.

Indexed as

RegistriesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle Agedepidemiologyoncologyprimary care

Identifiers

PMID31924638
PMCPMC6955554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.