ArticleBMJ open2024
Symptomatic presentation of cancer in primary care: a scoping review of patients' experiences and needs during the cancer diagnostic pathway.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Experience of NHS diagnostic investigation following a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) screening test: qualitative interviews with NHS-Galleri trial participants who had a cancer signal detected.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Preferences for multi-cancer tests (MCTs) in primary care: discrete choice experiments of general practitioners and the general public in England.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Mapping intellectual structure and research hotspots of cancer studies in primary health care: A machine-learning-based analysis.Medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective was to map the experiences and needs of patients presenting with symptoms of suspected cancer in the primary care interval (from when they first present to primary care to their first appointment or referral to a secondary or tertiary level healthcare facility).
designThis was a scoping review. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies or reports written in English which included primary data on the primary care interval experiences and/or needs of adult patients presenting with new symptoms of suspected cancer were eligible. Studies which only included patients with secondary or recurring cancer, conference abstracts and reviews were excluded. No date limits were applied.
methodsThe Joanna Briggs Institute method for Scoping Reviews guided screening, report selection and data extraction. At least two independent reviewers contributed to each stage. Medline, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Embase and Web of Science were searched and several grey literature resources. Relevant quantitative findings were qualitised and integrated with qualitative findings. A thematic analysis was carried out.
resultsOf the 4855 records identified in the database search, 18 were included in the review, along with 13 identified from other sources. The 31 included studies were published between 2002 and 2023 and most (n=17) were conducted in the UK. Twenty subthemes across four themes (patient experience, interpersonal, healthcare professional (HCP) skills, organisational) were identified. No studies included patient-reported outcome measures. Patients wanted (1) to feel heard and understood by HCPs, (2) a plan to establish what was causing their symptoms, and (3) information about the next stages of the diagnostic process.
conclusionsScoping review findings can contribute to service planning as the cancer diagnostic pathway for symptomatic presentation of cancer evolves. The effectiveness of this pathway should be evaluated not only in terms of clinical outcomes, but also patient-reported outcomes and experience, along with the perspectives of primary care HCPs.
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.