↓ Skip to main content

Emergency diagnosis of cancer and previous general practice consultations: insights from linked patient survey data

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, April 2017
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 (#18 of 3,002)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
22 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
164 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Emergency diagnosis of cancer and previous general practice consultations: insights from linked patient survey data
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, April 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x690869
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gary A Abel, Silvia C Mendonca, Sean McPhail, Yin Zhou, Lucy Elliss-Brookes, Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Abstract

Emergency diagnosis of cancer is common and aetiologically complex. The proportion of emergency presenters who have consulted previously with relevant symptoms is uncertain. To examine how many patients with cancer, who were diagnosed as emergencies, have had previous primary care consultations with relevant symptoms; and among those, to examine how many had multiple consultations. Secondary analysis of patient survey data from the 2010 English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES), previously linked to population-based data on diagnostic route. For emergency presenters with 18 different cancers, associations were examined for two outcomes (prior GP consultation status; and 'three or more consultations' among prior consultees) using logistic regression. Among 4647 emergency presenters, 1349 (29%) reported no prior consultations, being more common in males (32% versus 25% in females, P<0.001), older (44% in ≥85 versus 30% in 65-74-year-olds, P<0.001), and the most deprived (35% versus 25% least deprived, P = 0.001) patients; and highest/lowest for patients with brain cancer (46%) and mesothelioma (13%), respectively (P<0.001 for overall variation by cancer site). Among 3298 emergency presenters with prior consultations, 1356 (41%) had three or more consultations, which were more likely in females (P<0.001), younger (P<0.001), and non-white patients (P = 0.017) and those with multiple myeloma, and least likely for patients with leukaemia (P<0.001). Contrary to suggestions that emergency presentations represent missed diagnoses, about one-third of emergency presenters (particularly those in older and more deprived groups) have no prior GP consultations. Furthermore, only about one-third report multiple (three or more) consultations, which are more likely in 'harder-to-suspect' groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 164 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 25%
Unspecified 12 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Other 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 36%
Unspecified 20 34%
Psychology 6 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 6 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 317. 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 28 November 2018.
All research outputs
#38,133
of 13,758,680 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#18
of 3,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,830
of 263,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#3
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,758,680 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 3,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. 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 263,211 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 93 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 96% of its contemporaries.