↓ Skip to main content

Weight loss as a predictor of cancer in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 4,715)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
44 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
58 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
video
3 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
Title
Weight loss as a predictor of cancer in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, April 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x695801
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian D Nicholson, William Hamilton, Jack O'Sullivan, Paul Aveyard, Fd Richard Hobbs

Abstract

Weight loss is a non-specific cancer symptom for which there are no clinical guidelines about investigation in primary care. To summarise the available evidence on weight loss as a clinical feature of cancer in patients presenting to primary care. A diagnostic test accuracy review and meta-analysis. Studies reporting 2 × 2 diagnostic accuracy data for weight loss (index test) in adults presenting to primary care and a subsequent diagnosis of cancer (reference standard) were included. QUADAS-2 was used to assess study quality. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios, and positive predictive values were calculated, and a bivariate meta-analysis performed. A total of 25 studies were included, with 23 (92%) using primary care records. Of these, 20 (80%) defined weight loss as a physician's coding of the symptom; the remainder collected data directly. One defined unexplained weight loss using objective measurements. Positive associations between weight loss and cancer were found for 10 cancer sites: prostate, colorectal, lung, gastro-oesophageal, pancreatic, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, ovarian, myeloma, renal tract, and biliary tree. Sensitivity ranged from 2% to 47%, and specificity from 92% to 99%, across cancer sites. The positive predictive value for cancer in male and female patients with weight loss for all age groups ≥60 years exceeded the 3% risk threshold that current UK guidance proposes for further investigation. A primary care clinician's decision to code for weight loss is highly predictive of cancer. For such patients, urgent referral pathways are justified to investigate for cancer across multiple sites.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Master 19 13%
Other 9 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 51 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Psychology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 56 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 402. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 February 2024.
All research outputs
#74,036
of 25,383,344 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#29
of 4,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,806
of 335,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#2
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.