| Title |
The effect of the 2-week wait referral system on the detection of and mortality from colorectal cancer: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0358-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ella Mozdiak, Alexander Tsertsvadze, Michael McFarlane, Monika Widlak, Maria Tabuso, Amber Dunlop, Ramesh Arasaradnam |
| Abstract |
Colorectal cancer represents the fourth most common cancer in England and Wales; survival is high for early stage disease but declines sharply with advanced stage. UK figures suggest that cancer survival rates are lower than those of other Western European countries. Current 5-year survival is around 50 %. A rapid access strategy was introduced through the Department of Health in 2000. This 2-week wait (TWW) referral pathway was devised to streamline referral for suspected cancer, allow diagnosis at an earlier stage, reduce cancer survival inequality and reduce cancer-related mortality. However, only around half of patients with colorectal cancer have symptoms that fit the TWW criteria plus there is a fourfold difference in referral rates across England and Wales. High-quality evidence of TWW outcome measures for colorectal cancer is lacking. This systematic review will collate and evaluate the latest evidence on colorectal cancer detection rate, stage at diagnosis and mortality. English-language publications from 2000 reporting outcomes on the TWW referral system for suspected colorectal cancer will be eligible for inclusion. Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE via PubMed, NHS Evidence, Trip and the British Library Catalogue databases will be searched. Two paired reviewers will independently screen all titles/abstracts and full text for eligibility, then extract data and assess for bias using standardised formats. They will hand review reference lists of eligible articles. Disagreement will be resolved via third party adjudication. Summary effect measures for post-referral diagnosis and mortality rates will be calculated and expressed as relative risk, hazard rate ratio or risk difference with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals. Where possible summary effect measures will be pooled, heterogeneity and its extent for pooled estimates will be assessed via visual inspection of forest plots and explored via sub-group analysis. In this systematic review, we aim to summarise the relevant evidence on cancer detection rate, cancer stage at diagnosis and disease-related mortality rates for patients with suspected colorectal cancer investigated through the TWW referral system in England and Wales. We will highlight gaps in the evidence and provide a better understanding of whether it is meeting its desired effect. PROSPERO CRD42016037368. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 19% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 24 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 August 2017.
All research outputs
#12,932,853
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,363
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,834
of 314,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#32
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 314,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.