Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40719447›Full record

ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center

Characteristics of Optimal Cancer Referrals Made by Primary Care Clinicians: Scoping Review.

Olufisayo Olakotan, Judith Yargawa, Julie-Ann Moreland, Claire Friedemann Smith, Brian D Nicholson, Andrew Millar, Georgia B Black

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Olufisayo OlakotanWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Judith YargawaWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6299-2215
Julie-Ann MorelandDepartment of Radiology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Claire Friedemann SmithNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9934-5882
Brian D NicholsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, UK.
Andrew MillarNorth Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Georgia B BlackWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2676-5071

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

NeoplasmsPrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationHumansCancercommunicationhealthcare improvementreferral

Identifiers

PMID40719447
PMCPMC12304610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.