ArticleFamily practice2022
Recognizing sinonasal cancer in primary care: a matched case-control study using electronic records.
Article in Family practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancers of the nasopharynx, nasal cavity, and accessory sinuses ("sinonasal") are rare in England, with around 750 patients diagnosed annually. There are no specific National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) referral guidelines for these cancers and no primary care research published.
objectiveTo identify and quantify clinical features of sinonasal cancer in UK primary care patients.
methodsThis matched case-control study used UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) data. Patients were aged ≥40 years with a diagnosis of sinonasal cancer between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009 and had consulted their GP in the year before diagnosis. Clinical features of sinonasal cancer were analysed using conditional logistic regression. Positive predictive values (PPVs) for single and combined features were calculated.
resultsIn total, 155 cases and 697 controls were studied. Nine symptoms and one abnormal investigation were significantly associated with the cancer: nasal mass; odds ratio, 95 (95% confidence interval 7.0, 1315, P = 0.001); head and neck lumps, 68 (12, 387, P < 0.001); epistaxis, 17 (3.9, 70, P < 0.001); rhinorrhoea, 14 (4.6, 44, P < 0.001); visual disturbance, 12 (2.2, 67, P = 0.004); sinusitis, 7.3 (2.2, 25, P = 0.001); sore throat, 6.0 (2.0, 18, P = 0.001); otalgia, 5.4 (1.6, 18, P = 0.007); headache, 3.6 (1.4, 9.5, P = 0.01); raised white cell count, 8.5 (2.8, 27, P < 0.001). Combined PPVs for epistaxis/rhinorrhoea, epistaxis/sinusitis, and rhinorrhoea/sinusitis were 0.62%.
conclusionThis is the first primary care study identifying epistaxis, sinusitis, and rhinorrhoea as part of the clinical prodrome of sinonasal cancer. Although no PPVs meet the 3% NICE referral threshold, these results may help clinicians identify who warrants safety-netting and possible specialist referral, potentially reducing the number of advanced-stage diagnoses of sinonasal cancer.
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.