↓ Skip to main content

Incidentally diagnosed cancer and commonly preceding clinical scenarios: a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of English audit data

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, September 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Incidentally diagnosed cancer and commonly preceding clinical scenarios: a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of English audit data
Published in
BMJ Open, September 2019
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028362
Pubmed ID
Authors

Minjoung Monica Koo, Greg Rubin, Sean McPhail, Georgios Lyratzopoulos

Abstract

Cancer can be diagnosed in the absence of tumour-related symptoms, but little is known about the frequency and circumstances preceding such diagnoses which occur outside participation in screening programmes. We aimed to examine incidentally diagnosed cancer among a cohort of cancer patients diagnosed in England. Cross-sectional study of national primary care audit data on an incident cancer patient population. We analysed free-text information on the presenting features of cancer patients aged 15 or older included in the English National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care (2009-2010). Patients with screen-detected cancers or prostate cancer were excluded. We examined the odds of incidental cancer diagnosis by patient characteristics and cancer site using logistic regression, and described clinical scenarios leading to incidental diagnosis. Among the studied cancer patient population (n=13 810), 520 (4%) patients were diagnosed incidentally. The odds of incidental cancer diagnosis increased with age (p<0.001), with no difference between men and women after adjustment. Incidental diagnosis was most common among patients with leukaemia (23%), renal (13%) and thyroid cancer (12%), and least common among patients with brain (0.9%), oesophageal (0.5%) and cervical cancer (no cases diagnosed incidentally). Variation in odds of incidental diagnosis by cancer site remained after adjusting for age group and sex.There was a range of clinical scenarios preceding incidental diagnoses in primary or secondary care. These included the monitoring or management of pre-existing conditions, routine testing before or after elective surgery, and the investigation of unrelated acute or new conditions. One in 25 patients with cancer in our population-based cohort were diagnosed incidentally, through different mechanisms across primary and secondary care settings. The epidemiological, clinical, psychological and economic implications of this phenomenon merit further investigation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 32%
Unspecified 4 18%
Other 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 45%
Unspecified 4 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 02 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,104,713
of 15,956,969 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#2,374
of 14,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,200
of 269,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#117
of 779 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,956,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 269,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 779 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.