ArticleCureus2026
Assessing Unit Perspectives on Referrals to a Regional Bone and Soft Tissue Tumour Service.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pathologies of bone and soft tissues may be complex and heterogeneous; referral patterns influence service efficiency and workflow. This study quantifies regional evidence of referral volume, diagnostic outcomes, and pre-referral imaging pathways from the perspective of referring units. All referrals to a tertiary United Kingdom Midlands National Health Service (NHS) bone and soft tissue service over a 10-year period were retrospectively assessed using a prospectively maintained institutional database. In total, 279 patients were referred for specialist assessment during the study period. Diagnoses were classified as provisional or final, with imaging modalities categorised as first-, second-, or third-line investigations prior to referral in accordance with the order in which they were performed. True malignant bone tumours, as defined by histology, constituted a small proportion of referrals: seven patients (2.5%). Benign bone and soft tissue lesions represented a sizeable proportion of provisional diagnoses: 81 patients (29.0%). Metastatic disease and malignant bone tumours were provisionally diagnosed, more commonly than they were confirmed by specialist assessment: 84 patients (30.1%) provisionally referred, 35 patients (12.5%) confirmed following specialist review. Referral volumes varied across specialties and many patients underwent multiple imaging studies prior to referral. These findings provide baseline observational data from a single regional service and highlight the role of specialist bone and soft tissue tumour centres as important diagnostic triage and risk-stratification services within a landscape of heterogeneous pathology and referral pathways. The identification of malignant disease within a small subset of referrals reinforces the value of early specialist assessment for patients with suspected bone and soft tissue tumours.
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.