ArticleBritish journal of cancer2024
The effect of comorbidities on diagnostic interval for lung cancer in England: a cohort study using electronic health record data.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic testing patterns for lung cancer-related symptoms in primary care: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Rational design, synthesis of some quinolinone-Schiff bases/ pyridazino[4,5-c]quinolinones with potent anti-lung cancer and antituberculosis performance.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- ESR Bridges: lung cancer: new developments in imaging and treatment-a multidisciplinary view.European radiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Yonder: Improving connections, AI in reflective practice, lung cancer diagnosis, and euthanasia aftercare.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComorbid conditions may delay lung cancer diagnosis by placing demand on general practioners' time reducing the possibility of prompt cancer investigation ("competing demand conditions"), or by offering a plausible non-cancer explanation for signs/symptoms ("alternative explanation conditions").
methodPatients in England born before 1955 and diagnosed with incident lung cancer between 1990 and 2019 were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked hospital admission and cancer registry data. Diagnostic interval was defined as time from first presentation in primary care with a relevant sign/symptom to the diagnosis date. 14 comorbidities were classified as ten "competing demand" and four "alternative explanation" conditions. Associations with diagnostic interval were investigated using multivariable linear regression models.
resultsComplete data were available for 11870 lung cancer patients. In adjusted analyses diagnostic interval was longer for patients with "alternative explanation" conditions, by 31 and 74 days in patients with one and ≥2 conditions respectively versus those with none. Number of "competing demand" conditions did not remain in the final adjusted regression model for diagnostic interval.
conclusionsConditions offering alternative explanations for lung cancer symptoms are associated with increased diagnostic intervals. Clinical guidelines should incorporate the impact of alternative and competing causes upon delayed diagnosis.
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.