Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34862227›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2021

Isolated headache is not a reliable indicator for brain cancer: the 2-week wait pathway for suspected CNS malignancies.

Bryan Ceronie, Thomas Hart, Daniel Belete, Lucille Ramani, Anish Bahra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Isolated headache is not a reliable indicator for brain cancer.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Bryan CeronieSt George's Hospital, London, UK, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK and Whipps Cross Hospital, London, UK.
Thomas HartSt George's Hospital, London, UK, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK and Whipps Cross Hospital, London, UK.
Daniel BeleteWhipps Cross Hospital, London, UK.
Lucille RamaniWhipps Cross Hospital, London, UK.
Anish BahraNational Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK and Whipps Cross Hospital, London, UK a.bahra@nhs.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe UK uses the 2-week-wait (2WW) pathway for rapid access to cancer services. It is unclear whether this is effective for brain cancer.

methodsWe retrospectively analysed all 2WW referrals for brain cancer between 2009 and 2016 in a district general neurology department. We compared clinical presentations to national guidelines and diagnoses of brain cancer.

resultsOf the 153 cases analysed, four brain cancers were identified: two glioblastomas and two metastases. Headaches were the most common referral. The end diagnosis was mostly migraine. The highest positive predictive value was for behavioural/personality change (5.3%) and sub-acute neurological deficit (3.2%). There was no significant association between any symptom(s) and brain cancer.

conclusionThe 2WW pathway is not effective in the diagnosis of brain cancer. Resources are better directed towards clinical research and treatment trials. Headache remains the most common reason for referral although it is not yet a reliable indicator of brain cancer.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationHeadacheHumansPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective Studies2-week waitbrain cancerbrain tumourglioblastomaheadache

Identifiers

PMID34862227
PMCPMC8806310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.