ArticleBJS open2021
Comparison of the urgent referral for suspected breast cancer process with patient age and a predictive multivariable model.
Article in BJS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Use of artificial intelligence to identify patients to be assessed in a breast clinic on 2-week wait: a retrospective cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- A Study Evaluating the Accuracy of Triage for Breast Referrals During the Covid-19 Pandemic in a Tertiary Hospital.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- An exploratory assessment of the impact of a novel risk assessment test on breast cancer clinic waiting times and workflow: a discrete event simulation model.BMC health services research · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe urgent 2-week wait referral for suspected breast cancer system (U2WW) in the UK prioritizes primary care referrals to one-stop breast clinics as 'urgent' or 'choose and book' (C&B). The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of U2WW in discriminating cancer versus no cancer, and to consider alternative criteria.
methodsClinical features elicited in primary care and demographics of consecutive female patients in a specialist breast clinic were collated at the time of consultation from May 2008 to July 2017. U2WW was compared with patient age alone and a multivariable model in terms of accuracy and net cost for eight underlying cost-benefit assumptions.
resultsThere were 7915 eligible referrals: 4877 urgent (61.6 per cent) and 3038 C&B (38.4 per cent) referrals. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 546 patients (6.9 per cent): 491 (10.1 per cent) in urgent and 55 (1.8 per cent) in C&B referrals (P < 0.001). The multivariable model summated the significant variables: age (odds ratio (OR) 1.07, 95 per cent c.i. 1.07 to 1.08), tumour (OR 4.85, 3.62 to 6.52), observed change (OR 1.73, 1.34 to 2.23), pain (OR 0.46, 0.35 to 0.61) and gravidity (OR 0.72, 0.54 to 0.95). The area under the curve was 0.651 for U2WW, 0.784 for age alone, and 0.824 for the multivariable model (P <0.001 for all comparisons). Considering the cost assumptions, age alone and the multivariable model were either more accurate than U2WW, or as accurate but less costly.
conclusionThe U2WW is surpassed by patient age as a single referral criterion. A multivariable model based on demographics and simple clinical features outperformed both. The continued use of the U2WW needs to be reconsidered.
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.