Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41344811›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2026

Variations in the investigation of colorectal cancer-related symptoms in Australian primary care: a retrospective cohort study.

Shaoke Lei, Brent Venning, Alison Pearce, Jon Emery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shaoke LeiDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia shaoke.lei@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-6772-0649
Brent VenningDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2631-1002
Alison PearceDaffodil Centre, University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Jon EmeryDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer-related symptoms are commonly seen in primary care. Understanding variations in symptom management is crucial for timely care.

aimTo examine diagnostic testing patterns for gastrointestinal symptoms associated with colorectal cancer in primary care. DESIGN AND

settingRetrospective cohort study using linked primary care data from patients aged ≥40 years presenting with colorectal cancer-related symptoms between 2008 and 2022.

methodThe proportion of patients receiving diagnostic actions was assessed, including medications, pathology, imaging, colonoscopy, or specialist referral. Differences in testing by socioeconomic status and subsequent colorectal cancer diagnosis were examined.

resultsAmong 70 107 patients, 378 (0.5%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. Abdominal pain (32%;

conclusionSubstantial variation in investigating colorectal cancer-related symptoms may contribute to inequities in diagnostic outcomes.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareAbdominal PainAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaColonoscopyConstipationDiarrheaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReferral and Consultationclinical decision-makingcolorectal cancerdiagnostic techniques and proceduresearly detection of cancergeneral practicehealthcare disparities

Identifiers

PMID41344811
PMCPMC13060685

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.