Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37308303›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2023

Diagnostic windows in non-neoplastic diseases: a systematic review.

Emma Whitfield, Becky White, Spiros Denaxas, Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Prediagnostic primary care consultations and imaging in emergency-diagnosed versus referred patients with lung cancer: a population-based linked data study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Emma WhitfieldECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes), Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London (UCL), London, and Institute of Health Informatics, UCL, London.ORCID 0000-0001-5427-7150
Becky WhiteECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes), Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London (UCL), London.ORCID 0000-0002-0643-7890
Spiros DenaxasInstitute of Health Informatics, UCL, London; associate director, British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre, London; Health Data Research UK, London, and UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, London.ORCID 0000-0001-9612-7791
Georgios LyratzopoulosECHO (Epidemiology of Cancer Healthcare & Outcomes), Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London (UCL), London.ORCID 0000-0002-2873-7421

Funding

Cancer Research UK 18180Medical Research Council MC_PC_20058Medical Research Council MC_PC_20059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInvestigating changes in prediagnostic healthcare utilisation can help identify how much earlier conditions could be diagnosed. Such 'diagnostic windows' are established for cancer but remain relatively unexplored for non-neoplastic conditions.

aimTo extract evidence on the presence and length of diagnostic windows for non-neoplastic conditions. DESIGN AND

settingA systematic review of studies of prediagnostic healthcare utilisation was carried out.

methodA search strategy was developed to identify relevant studies from PubMed and Connected Papers. Data were extracted on prediagnostic healthcare use, and evidence of diagnostic window presence and length was assessed.

resultsOf 4340 studies screened, 27 were included, covering 17 non-neoplastic conditions, including both chronic (for example, Parkinson's disease) and acute conditions (for example, stroke). Prediagnostic healthcare events included primary care encounters and presentations with relevant symptoms. For 10 conditions, sufficient evidence to determine diagnostic window presence and length was available, ranging from 28 days (herpes simplex encephalitis) to 9 years (ulcerative colitis). For the remaining conditions, diagnostic windows were likely to be present, but insufficient study duration was often a barrier to robustly determining their length, meaning that diagnostic window length may exceed 10 years for coeliac disease, for example.

conclusionEvidence of changing healthcare use before diagnosis exists for many non-neoplastic conditions, establishing that early diagnosis is possible, in principle. In particular, some conditions may be detectable many years earlier than they are currently diagnosed. Further research is required to accurately estimate diagnostic windows and to determine how much earlier diagnosis may be possible, and how this might be achieved.

Indexed as

Parkinson DiseaseAcute DiseaseDelivery of Health CareHumansdiagnosiselectronic health recordsprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID37308303
PMCPMC10285689

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.