ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2021
Diagnostic center for primary care patients with nonspecific symptoms and suspected cancer: compliance to workflow and accuracy of tests and examinations.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use and diagnostic outcomes of cancer patient pathways in Denmark - is the place of initial diagnostic work-up an important factor?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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate compliance to workflow and accuracy of tests in Sweden's first fast-track referral pathway for patients with nonspecific symptoms and suspected cancer (SCAN).
designProspective cohort study with consecutive inclusion of patients referred to the diagnostic center (DC).
settingPatients with nonspecific symptoms were examined in primary care according to a protocol including two test packages and diagnostic imaging. If symptoms were not explained, patients were referred to the DC and a DC-test package was taken. At the DC, further investigations resulted in diagnosis/no diagnosis. SUBJECTS: A total of 290 patients, median age 69 years (interquartile range [IQR] 59-76), 48% men, participated. A total of 64 (22%) were diagnosed with cancer, 186 (64%) with non-malignant disease and 40 (14%) had no new disease.
main outcome measureCompliance was estimated by percentage of compulsory tests taken. Test accuracy was assessed by likelihood ratios (LRs) regarding cancer.
resultsA total of 23 (8%) patients had taken both primary care packages, whereas 150 (52%) patients went through entire diagnostic imaging. Abnormal pulmonary X-ray, peak expiratory flow (PEF) and calcium had the highest LRs in primary care (3.5; 3.2; 2.7). A total of 105 (36%) took the complete DC-package, of which bilirubin and cytomegalovirus had the highest LRs (11.5; 10.9). The median number (IQR) of abnormal primary care tests was 5 (3-6) for cancer, 3 (2-6) for other diagnoses and 1 (0-3) for no diagnosis.
conclusionsCompliance to test packages in primary care was low, which warrants review of the workflow. Few single tests had high accuracy regarding cancer, but the number of abnormal tests can provide guidance in complicated investigations of suspected malignancies.KEY POINTSFast-track referral pathways for patients with nonspecific serious symptoms have been implemented in several countries and are part of the national cancer strategy in all of Scandinavia.Compliance with compulsory tests in primary care was modest in this study; 8% of the patients had taken the entire compulsory test packages.Few single compulsory tests had high accuracy regarding subsequent cancer, which warrants a review of tests and examinations. However, patients diagnosed with cancer had a higher number of abnormal test results compared to the other groups.
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.