Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37567752›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2023

Gut feeling for the diagnosis of cancer in general practice: a diagnostic accuracy review.

Masahiro Yao, Makoto Kaneko, Jessica Watson, Greg Irving

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The Probability Space: How GPs Think Before Cancer has a Name.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Masahiro YaoDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Department of Health Data Science, Yokohama Hodogaya Central Hospital, Japan Community Healthcare Organization, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan.
Makoto KanekoDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4581-8274
Jessica WatsonSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8177-6438
Greg IrvingHealth Research Institute, Edge Hill University Faculty of Health and Social Care, Ormskirk, UK irvingg@edgehill.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9471-3700
Edge Hill University · GBHamamatsu University School of Medicine · JPJapan Community Healthcare Organization · JPUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDiagnostic delay in cancer is a challenge in primary care. Although screening tests are effective in diagnosing some cancers such as breast, colorectal and cervical cancers, symptom-based cancer diagnosis is often difficult due to its low incidence in primary care and the influence of patient anxiety, doctor-patient relationship and psychosocial context. A general practitioner's gut feeling for cancer may play a role in the early diagnosis of cancer in primary care where diagnostic resources are limited. The aim of this study is to summarise existing evidence about the test accuracy of gut feeling (index test) in symptomatic adult patients presenting to general practice, compared with multidisciplinary team-confirmed diagnosis of cancer (reference standard).

designDiagnostic accuracy review following Cochrane methods was performed. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Medion databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cross-sectional, cohort and randomised studies of test accuracy that compared gut feeling (index test) with an appropriate cancer diagnosis (reference standard). No language or publication status restrictions were applied. We included all studies published before 25 March 2022. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Methodological quality was appraised, using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) criteria. Meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models was used.

resultsOf 1286 potentially relevant studies identified, six met the inclusion criteria. For two of the six studies, data could not be extracted despite contacting authors. No studies satisfied all QUADAS-2 criteria. After meta-analysis of data from the remaining studies, the summary point of HSROC had a sensitivity of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.53) and a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.92).

conclusionsGut feeling for cancer when used in symptomatic adult patients in general practice has a relatively low sensitivity and high specificity. When the prevalence of cancer in the symptomatic population presenting in general practice exceeds 1.15%, the performance of gut feeling reaches the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 3% positive predictive value threshold for action, which recommends urgent access to specialist care and further investigations. The findings support the continued and expanded use of gut feeling items in referral pathways.

Indexed as

General PracticeNeoplasmsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDelayed DiagnosisHumansPhysician-Patient RelationsSensitivity and SpecificityAdult oncologyMEDICAL HISTORYPRIMARY CARERisk management

Identifiers

PMID37567752
PMCPMC10423799
OpenAlexW4385778939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.