The diagnostic value of symptoms for colorectal cancer in primary care: A systematic review
British Journal of General Practice, ISSN: 0960-1643, Vol: 61, Issue: 586, Page: e231-43
2011
- 206Citations
- 296Captures
- 3Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations206
- Citation Indexes196
- 196
- CrossRef141
- Policy Citations9
- Policy Citation9
- Clinical Citations1
- PubMed Guidelines1
- Captures296
- Readers296
- 296
- Mentions3
- References2
- Wikipedia2
- News Mentions1
- News1
Most Recent News
Qualitative Fecal Immunochemical Test as a Screening Test for Colorectal Cancer
I Ketut Mariadi1, Ni Nyoman Metriani Nesa2, Gde Somayana1, Kurniawan3 1Gastroentero-hepatology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Udayana University/Prof. Dr. I.G.N.G. Ngoerah General Hospital, Indonesia. 2Gastroentero-hepatology
Review Description
Background: Over 37 000 new colorectal cancers are diagnosed in the UK each year. Most present symptomatically to primary care. Aim: To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic value of symptoms associated with colorectal cancer. Design: Systematic review. Method: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched to February 2010, for diagnostic studies of symptomatic adult patients in primary care. Studies of asymptomatic patients, screening, referred populations, or patients with colorectal cancer recurrences, or with fewer than 100 participants were excluded. The target condition was colorectal cancer. Data were extracted to estimate the diagnostic performance of each symptom or pair of symptoms. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis. The quality of studies was assessed with the QUADAS tool. Results: Twenty-three studies were included. Positive predictive values (PPVs) for rectal bleeding from 13 papers ranged from 2.2% to 16%, with a pooled estimate of 8.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.0% to 11%) in those aged ≥50 years. Pooled PPV estimates for other symptoms were: abdominal pain (three studies) 3.3% (95% CI = 0.7% to 16%); and anaemia (four studies) 9.7% (95% CI = 3.5% to 27%). For rectal bleeding accompanied by weight loss or change in bowel habit, pooled positive likelihood ratios (PLRs) were 1.9 (95% CI = 1.3 to 2.8) and 1.8 (95% CI = 1.3 to 2.5) respectively, suggesting higher risk when both symptoms were present. Conversely, the PLR was one or less for abdominal pain, diarrhoea, or constipation accompanying rectal bleeding. Conclusion: The findings suggest that investigation of rectal bleeding or anaemia in primary care patients is warranted, irrespective of whether other symptoms are present. The risks from other single symptoms are lower, though multiple symptoms also warrant investigation. ©British Journal of General Practice.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=79957528016&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11x572427; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21619747; https://bjgp.org/lookup/doi/10.3399/bjgp11X572427; https://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11x572427; https://bjgp.org/content/61/586/e231
Royal College of General Practitioners
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know