Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33686679›Full record

ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2021

The impact of the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer services in England and Wales: A national survey.

Jemma M Boyle, Angela Kuryba, Helen A Blake, Ajay Aggarwal, Jan van der Meulen, Kate Walker, Michael Braun, Nicola Fearnhead

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Socioeconomic differences in help seeking for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19: a UK-wide qualitative interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Colorectal cancer care in the COVID-19 era: outcomes from a 'mixed site' model.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jemma M BoyleLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8429-957X
Angela KurybaClinical Effectiveness Unit, The Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK.
Helen A BlakeLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Ajay AggarwalLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Jan van der MeulenLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Kate WalkerLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Michael BraunDepartment of Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Nicola FearnheadDepartment of Surgery, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) NIHR300599NIHR Advanced Fellowship NIHR300599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe object of this work was to study how National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales aimed to maintain effective and safe colorectal cancer (CRC) services during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020).

methodA national survey was performed among all 148 hospitals providing CRC services. Information was collected about changes in referrals, diagnostic, staging and therapeutic procedures, as well as whether there was access to a 'cold site' (a hospital facility free of COVID-19). Clinicians in each hospital were also asked to give the 'single most important lesson learned' about keeping services safe and effective.

resultsFull responses were received from 123 (83%) hospitals, and information about 'cold sites' was available for 146 (99%). Eighty hospitals (54%) had access to a 'cold site' and this was increased in regions with higher COVID-19 infection rates (p <0.001). Of the 123 responding hospitals, 105 (85%) indicated that referrals of patients with suspected CRC had dropped by at least 30%, and 69 (56%) indicated that treatment plans were altered in at least 50% of CRC patients. However, 'cold site' availability protected the capacity for diagnostic colonoscopy (p = 0.013) and CRC resection (p = 0.010). Many 'lessons learned' highlighted the importance of adequate structural service organization, often mentioning 'cold sites' and regional coordination as examples, good communication and triage of patients based on clinical urgency.

conclusionAccess to 'cold sites', as well as regional coordination, clear communication and strong leadership, were found to be pivotal in maintaining capacity for diagnosis and treatment of CRC during the COVID-19 surge.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsCOVID-19EnglandHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2State MedicineWalescold sitecolorectal cancerCOVID-19

Identifiers

PMID33686679
PMCPMC8250906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.