ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2025
Diagnostic testing patterns for lung cancer-related symptoms in primary care: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine diagnostic testing patterns for symptoms associated with lung cancer in Australian general practice.
designRetrospective cohort study using a linked primary care database.
settingVictorian general practices enrolled in the University of Melbourne's primary care data repository, Patron.
participantsDeidentified patients aged 40 years and over who presented with symptoms associated with lung cancer between 2008 and 2022.
main outcome measuresThe proportion of patients who underwent pathology, imaging or referral or who were prescribed medication; differences across sociodemographic variables and the proportion of patients diagnosed with lung cancer.
resultsBetween 33% and 53% of patients underwent no investigations. Among those investigated, blood tests were most common for fatigue (83%) and anorexia (69%), while X-rays were more commonly performed for chest infections (40%) and haemoptysis (38%). Two-thirds of patients with haemoptysis were investigated, but only 22% were referred for a chest CT scan. When medications were prescribed, antimicrobials were often used, particularly for chest infections (79%) and haemoptysis (67%), while beta-2 agonists were primarily prescribed for shortness of breath (46%). Ever-smokers exhibited only marginally higher odds of being investigated (OR 1.05). Patients with higher socioeconomic advantage were 1.39 times more likely to undergo investigation than those with the least advantage (p<0.001). Presenting multiple times increased the odds of testing. Overall, lung cancer was diagnosed in 0.15% of patients, with haemoptysis preceding the highest proportion of cases (23/727; 3.2%).
conclusionThere is significant variation in diagnostic testing for lung cancer-related symptoms in Australian primary care. Future efforts should focus on optimising testing for high-risk symptoms, rationalising investigations for non-specific symptoms, implementing safety-netting for low-risk but not no-risk symptoms and addressing socioeconomic disparities in testing rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.