Gut feeling for the diagnosis of cancer in general practice: a diagnostic accuracy review

被引:1
|
作者
Yao, Masahiro [1 ]
Kaneko, Makoto [2 ]
Watson, Jessica [3 ]
Irving, Greg [4 ]
机构
[1] Yokohama Hodogaya Cent Hosp, Japan Community Healthcare Org, Dept Family & Community Med, Yokohama, Japan
[2] Yokohama City Univ, Dept Hlth Data Sci, Yokohama, Japan
[3] Univ Bristol, Sch Social & Community Med, Bristol, England
[4] Edge Hill Univ Fac Hlth & Social Care, Hlth Res Inst, Ormskirk, England
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2023年 / 13卷 / 08期
关键词
PRIMARY CARE; Adult oncology; MEDICAL HISTORY; Risk management; PRIMARY-CARE; METAANALYSIS; SUSPICION;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068549
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
ObjectivesDiagnostic delay in cancer is a challenge in primary care. Although screening tests are effective in diagnosing some cancers such as breast, colorectal and cervical cancers, symptom-based cancer diagnosis is often difficult due to its low incidence in primary care and the influence of patient anxiety, doctor-patient relationship and psychosocial context. A general practitioner's gut feeling for cancer may play a role in the early diagnosis of cancer in primary care where diagnostic resources are limited. The aim of this study is to summarise existing evidence about the test accuracy of gut feeling (index test) in symptomatic adult patients presenting to general practice, compared with multidisciplinary team-confirmed diagnosis of cancer (reference standard). DesignDiagnostic accuracy review following Cochrane methods was performed. Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Medion databases. Eligibility criteriaCross-sectional, cohort and randomised studies of test accuracy that compared gut feeling (index test) with an appropriate cancer diagnosis (reference standard). No language or publication status restrictions were applied. We included all studies published before 25 March 2022. Data extraction and synthesisMethodological quality was appraised, using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) criteria. Meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models was used. ResultsOf 1286 potentially relevant studies identified, six met the inclusion criteria. For two of the six studies, data could not be extracted despite contacting authors. No studies satisfied all QUADAS-2 criteria. After meta-analysis of data from the remaining studies, the summary point of HSROC had a sensitivity of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.53) and a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.92). ConclusionsGut feeling for cancer when used in symptomatic adult patients in general practice has a relatively low sensitivity and high specificity. When the prevalence of cancer in the symptomatic population presenting in general practice exceeds 1.15%, the performance of gut feeling reaches the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 3% positive predictive value threshold for action, which recommends urgent access to specialist care and further investigations. The findings support the continued and expanded use of gut feeling items in referral pathways.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Patient-physician relationship and use of gut feeling in cancer diagnosis in primary care: a cross-sectional survey of patients and their general practitioners
    Pedersen, Anette Fischer
    Andersen, Christina Maar
    Ingeman, Mads Lind
    Vedsted, Peter
    BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (07):
  • [42] Quality deviations in cancer diagnosis: prevalence and time to diagnosis in general practice
    Jensen, Henry
    Nissen, Aase
    Vedsted, Peter
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2014, 64 (619): : E92 - E98
  • [43] The 'sense of alarm' ('gut feeling') in clinical practice. A survey among European general practitioners on recognition and expression
    Stolper, Erik
    van Royen, Paul
    Dinant, Geert Jan
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2010, 16 (02) : 72 - 74
  • [44] Diagnostic Accuracy of BRAF Immunohistochemistry in Colorectal Cancer: a Meta-Analysis and Diagnostic Test Accuracy Review
    Pyo, Jung-Soo
    Sohn, Jin Hee
    Kang, Guhyun
    PATHOLOGY & ONCOLOGY RESEARCH, 2016, 22 (04) : 831 - 837
  • [45] Rectal bleeding and colorectal cancer in general practice: diagnostic study
    Wauters, H
    Van Casteren, V
    Buntinx, F
    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 321 (7267): : 998 - 999
  • [46] Diagnostic accuracy for skin cancer: Comparison of general practitioner with dermatologist and dermatopathologist
    Westbrook, RH
    Goyal, N
    Gawkrodger, DJ
    JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGICAL TREATMENT, 2006, 17 (01) : 57 - 58
  • [47] Diagnostic accuracy of administrative data algorithms in the diagnosis of osteoarthritis: a systematic review
    Swastina Shrestha
    Amish J. Dave
    Elena Losina
    Jeffrey N. Katz
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 16
  • [48] Diagnostic accuracy of delirium diagnosis in pediatric intensive care: a systematic review
    Alia Daoud
    Jonathan P Duff
    Ari R Joffe
    Critical Care, 18
  • [49] Diagnostic accuracy of administrative data algorithms in the diagnosis of osteoarthritis: a systematic review
    Shrestha, Swastina
    Dave, Amish J.
    Losina, Elena
    Katz, Jeffrey N.
    BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2016, 16
  • [50] Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and metaanalysis
    Meredith, Susanna M.
    Sanchez-Ramos, Luis
    Kaunitz, Andrew M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2009, 201 (01) : 107.e1 - 107.e6