ArticleInternational journal of cancer2022
Improving identification of symptomatic cancer at primary care clinics: A predictive modeling analysis in Botswana.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving identification of symptomatic cancer at primary care clinics: A predictive modeling analysis in Botswana.International journal of cancer · 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
11 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In resource-limited settings, augmenting primary care provider (PCP)-based referrals with data-derived algorithms could direct scarce resources towards those patients most likely to have a cancer diagnosis and benefit from early treatment. Using data from Botswana, we compared accuracy of predictions of probable cancer using different approaches for identifying symptomatic cancer at primary clinics. We followed cancer suspects until they entered specialized care for cancer treatment (following pathologically confirmed diagnosis), exited from the study following noncancer diagnosis, or died. Routine symptom and demographic data included baseline cancer probability assessed by the primary care provider (low, intermediate, high), age, sex, performance status, baseline cancer probability by study physician, predominant symptom (lump, bleeding, pain or other) and HIV status. Logistic regression with 10-fold cross-validation was used to evaluate classification by different sets of predictors: (1) PCPs, (2) Algorithm-only, (3) External specialist physician review and (4) Primary clinician augmented by algorithm. Classification accuracy was assessed using c-statistics, sensitivity and specificity. Six hundred and twenty-three adult cancer suspects with complete data were retained, of whom 166 (27%) were diagnosed with cancer. Models using PCP augmented by algorithm (c-statistic: 77.2%, 95% CI: 73.4%, 81.0%) and external study physician assessment (77.6%, 95% CI: 73.6%, 81.7%) performed better than algorithm-only (74.9%, 95% CI: 71.0%, 78.9%) and PCP initial assessment (62.8%, 95% CI: 57.9%, 67.7%) in correctly classifying suspected cancer patients. Sensitivity and specificity statistics from models combining PCP classifications and routine data were comparable to physicians, suggesting that incorporating data-driven algorithms into referral systems could improve efficiency.
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.