The effect of the 2-week wait referral system on the detection of and mortality from colorectal cancer: Protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Mozdiak, Ella ^a,b   Tsertsvadze, Alexander ^b   McFarlane, Michael ^a,b   Widlak, Monika ^a,b   Tabuso, Maria ^a,b   Dunlop, Amber ^a   Arasaradnam, Ramesh ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS COVENTRY AND WARWICKSHIRE NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SURVIVAL; COLORECTAL CANCER; DATA EXTRACTION; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COLORECTAL TUMOR; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84995666033     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0358-6     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Office for National Statistics. Mortality Statistics-Deaths registered in England and Wales Published online 2014. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/all-releases.html?definition=tcm%3A77-27475. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
2. Bowel Cancer UK. Media: Latest news 2012. Available from: http://www.bowelcanceruk.org.uk/media-centre/latest-news/cost-of-bowel-cancer-16-billion/. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
3. Department of Health. The likely impact of earlier diagnosis of cancer on costs and benefits to the NHS. London. 2011. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213788/dh_123576.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
4. Department of Health. Improving outcomes: a strategy for cancer 2011. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213785/dh_123394.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
5. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. CancerBase No. 11 Lyon, France. Available at: https://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
6. Cancer Research UK. Bowel cancer diagnosis and treatment statistics 2015. Available at: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/diagnosis-and-treatment#heading-Zero. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
7. Department of Health. The NHS cancer plan 2000. Archived: Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4014513.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
8. Hamilton W, Coleman MG, Rubin G. Colorectal cancer. BMJ. 2013;346:f3172.
9. National Institure for Health and Care Excellence[NICE]. Suspected cancer [update] NG12. London: NICE; 2015.
10. Redaniel MT, Ridd M, Martin RM, Coxon F, Jeffreys M, Wade J. Rapid diagnostic pathways for suspected colorectal cancer: views of primary and secondary care clinicians on challenges and their potential solutions. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10):e008577.
11. Chohan DP, Goodwin K, Wilkinson S, Miller R, Hall NR. How has the 'two-week wait' rule affected the presentation of colorectal cancer? Color Dis. 2005;7(5):450-3.
12. Cancer Research UK. The route to diagnosis for bowel cancer. 2016. Accessed March 2016.
13. National Cancer Intelligence Network. Urgent GP referral rates for suspected cancer. 2011. Available from http://www.ncin.org.uk/publications/data_briefings/gp_referral_rates. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
14. John SKP, Jones OM, Horseman N, Thomas P, Howell RD, Fozard JBJ. Inter general practice variability in use of referral guidelines for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2007;9(8):731-5.
15. Thorne K, Hutchings HA, Elwyn G. The effects of the Two-Week Rule on NHS colorectal cancer diagnostic services: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:43.
16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006-12.
17. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols [PRISMA-P] 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.
18. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Checklist 3: cohort studies. In: SIGN 50: a guideline developer's handbook, Edinburgh. 2008. http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/checklists.html. Accessed 1 Feb 2016
19. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Checklist 4: case-control studies. In: SIGN 50: a guideline developer's handbook, Edinburgh. 2008. http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/checklists.html. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
20. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-88.
21. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-34.