Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35570375›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of cancer care2022

A prospective evaluation of the fourth national Be Clear on Cancer 'Blood in Pee' campaign in England.

Samuel William David Merriel, Susan Ball, Chloe Jayne Bright, Vivian Mak, Carolynn Gildea, Lizz Paley, Chris Hyde, William Hamilton, Lucy Elliss-Brookes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of cancer care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Samuel William David MerrielInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2919-9087
Susan BallNIHR ARC South West Peninsula (PenARC), University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Chloe Jayne BrightNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, Public Health England, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6105-0560
Vivian MakNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Carolynn GildeaNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Lizz PaleyNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, Public Health England, London, UK.
Chris HydeInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
William HamiltonInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1611-1373
Lucy Elliss-BrookesNHS Digital, Leeds, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1159-6607

Funding

Cancer Research UK C8640/Q37A23385National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South West PeninsulaPublic Health England
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the impact of the fourth Be Clear on Cancer (BCoC) 'Blood in Pee' (BiP) campaign (July to September 2018) on bladder and kidney cancer symptom awareness and outcomes in England.

methodsIn this uncontrolled before and after study, symptom awareness and reported barriers to GP attendance were assessed using panel and one-to-one interviews. The Health Improvement Network (THIN), National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) and NHS Cancer Waiting Times (CWT) data were analysed to assess the impact on GP attendances, urgent cancer referrals, cancer diagnoses and 1-year survival. Analyses used Poisson, negative binomial and Cox regression.

resultsSymptom awareness and intention to consult a GP after one episode of haematuria increased following the campaign. GP attendance with haematuria (rate ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-1.28) and urgent cancer referrals (RR 1.18 95% CI: 1.08-1.28) increased following the campaign. Early-stage diagnoses increased for bladder cancer (difference in percentage 2.8%, 95% CI: -0.2%-5.8%), but not for kidney cancer (difference -0.6%, 95% CI: -3.2%-2.1%).

conclusionsThe fourth BCoC BiP campaign appears to have been effective in increasing bladder cancer symptom awareness and GP attendances, although long-term impacts are unclear.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHealth PromotionHematuriaHumansawarenessearly diagnosishaematuriakidney neoplasmspublic healthurinary bladder neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID35570375
PMCPMC9539495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.