ArticleBMJ open2025
Characterising the volume and variation of multiple urgent suspected cancer referrals in England, April 2013-March 2018: a national cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Diagnostic Implications of Multi-Cancer Early Detection Testing in the Investigation of Cancer Symptoms: An Exploratory Retrospective Analysis of the SYMPLIFY Study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo establish a methodology to categorise urgent suspected cancer (USC) referrals in England and use these categories to understand individual patient referral patterns by demographic characteristics, financial year and referral pathway.
designCross-sectional population-based cohort study.
settingFrom Cancer Waiting Times data, linked to demographic information held by the National Disease Registration Service, referral-level data on all USC referrals in England between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2018.
participantsAfter restricting records to those with an English postcode at referral and with complete demographic information, 9 524 435 referrals were identified for 7 542 592 patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: USC referrals were categorised into first and subsequent USC referrals, based primarily on intervals between referral dates. Our primary outcome was to describe the distribution of referral categories by financial year, suspected cancer referral type and four demographic variables. Our secondary aim was to understand which suspected cancer referral types were found in combination within the first 4 months.
resultsDuring the study period, 7.5 million people had an USC referral, with one in five having more than one referral, with 9.5 million referrals in total. Referrals were categorised as first (91.1%) and subsequent (8.9%) USC referrals. The relative increase in the number of referrals across the study period was largest (78.2%) for subsequent USC referrals.Subsequent referrals were most common in the gynaecological (10%), lung (10%) and haematological cancer pathways (12%).Suspected lower gastrointestinal referrals were most frequently included in a pair of USC referrals; it was one of the five most common pairings for 14 out of 16 referral type pathways, contributing to 30% of upper gastrointestinal USC referral pairings.
conclusionMultiple USC referrals increased in the study period, particularly within a year of the first referral. Common referral pairings suggest opportunities for pathway reorganisation where common non-specific symptoms result in multiple USC referrals.
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.