ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Characteristics of Optimal Cancer Referrals Made by Primary Care Clinicians: Scoping Review.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. 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.
- Malpractice claims for pancreatic cancer in Norway: claim-rates, injury domains, claim outcomes and indemnity compensation.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 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
BackgroundIn England, over 2 million patients are referred each year on urgent pathways to investigate suspected cancer. The content and quality of referrals have often been audited, but there is no consensus on what should be included in a referral to optimise diagnostic outcomes.AimTo identify and describe the characteristics of referral letters for suspected cancer from primary to secondary care that may optimise diagnostic outcomes.MethodThe scoping review employed the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley in 2005 and further expanded by Levac and Colquhoun 2010. We searched PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO to identify relevant studies in English Language published between 2000 and 2023. All findings were reported according to PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews.ResultsOf 3463 identified records, only thirteen met the inclusion criteria, employing qualitative and mixed methods, as well as retrospective audits of referrals. The studies noted that symptom information such as duration, appearance, and descriptive qualities was often missing. There was limited evidence suggesting that the inclusion of clinical examination findings, test information, and the motivation of the referring clinician were beneficial. Evidence relating to the benefits of guidelines and template referral forms was mixed. There was a paucity of research linking referral content to patient diagnostic outcomes.ConclusionDespite a small number of studies retrieved, there was broad consensus about the benefit of conveying detailed information in referrals for suspected cancer, particularly with respect to comprehensive symptom description and relevant tests and clinical examinations. Further research linking referral quality to diagnostic outcomes would be beneficial to drive improvement to diagnostic outcomes.
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.