↓ Skip to main content

Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
36 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, August 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x698561
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire Friedemann Smith, Alice C Tompson, Nicholas Jones, Josh Brewin, Elizabeth A Spencer, Clare R Bankhead, FD Richard Hobbs, Brian D Nicholson

Abstract

Direct access (DA) testing allows GPs to refer patients for investigation without consulting a specialist. The aim is to reduce waiting time for investigations and unnecessary appointments, enabling treatment to begin without delay. To establish the proportion of patients diagnosed with cancer and other diseases through DA testing, time to diagnosis, and suitability of DA investigations. Systematic review assessing the effectiveness of GP DA testing in adults. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Where possible, study data were pooled and analysed quantitatively. Where this was not possible, the data are presented narratively. The authors identified 60 papers that met pre-specified inclusion criteria. Most studies were carried out in the UK and were judged to be of poor quality. The authors found no significant difference in the pooled cancer conversion rate between GP DA referrals and patients who first consulted a specialist for any test, except gastroscopy. There were also no significant differences in the proportions of patients receiving any non-cancer diagnosis. Referrals for testing were deemed appropriate in 66.4% of those coming from GPs, and in 80.9% of those from consultants; this difference was not significant. The time from referral to testing was significantly shorter for patients referred for DA tests. Patient and GP satisfaction with DA testing was consistently high. GP DA testing performs as well as, and on some measures better than, consultant triaged testing on measures of disease detection, appropriateness of referrals, interval from referral to testing, and patient and GP satisfaction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 40%
Researcher 2 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 60%
Unspecified 3 30%
Chemistry 1 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 09 February 2019.
All research outputs
#382,996
of 13,343,384 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#187
of 2,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,244
of 266,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#10
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,343,384 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 266,444 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.