Development, validation and effectiveness of diagnostic prediction tools for colorectal cancer in primary care: a system
- PDF / 966,513 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 95 Downloads / 220 Views
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Development, validation and effectiveness of diagnostic prediction tools for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review Bogdan Grigore1* , Ruth Lewis2, Jaime Peters1, Sophie Robinson3 and Christopher J. Hyde1
Abstract Background: Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners (GP) diagnose colorectal cancer. It is unclear how well they perform and whether they lead to increased or quicker diagnoses and ultimately impact on patient quality of life and/or survival. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the development, validation, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness, of cancer diagnostic tools for colorectal cancer in primary care. Methods: Electronic databases including Medline and Web of Science were searched in May 2017 (updated October 2019). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full-texts. Studies were included if they reported the development, validation or accuracy of a prediction model, or assessed the effectiveness or costeffectiveness of diagnostic tools based on prediction models to aid GP decision-making for symptomatic patients presenting with features potentially indicative of colorectal cancer. Data extraction and risk of bias were completed by one reviewer and checked by a second. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: Eleven thousand one hundred thirteen records were screened and 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-studies reported on the development, validation and/or accuracy of 13 prediction models: eight for colorectal cancer, five for cancer areas/types that include colorectal cancer. The Qcancer models were generally the best performing. Three impact studies met the inclusion criteria. Two (an RCT and a pre-post study) assessed tools based on the RAT prediction model. The third study looked at the impact of GP practices having access to RAT or Qcancer. Although the pre-post study reported a positive impact of the tools on outcomes, the results of the RCT and crosssectional survey found no evidence that use of, or access to, the tools was associated with better outcomes. No study evaluated cost effectiveness. Conclusions: Many prediction models have been developed but none have been fully validated. Evidence demonstrating improved patient outcome of introducing the tools is the main deficiency and is essential given the imperfect classification achieved by all tools. This need is emphasised by the equivocal results of the small number of impact studies done so far. Keywords: Cancer, Primary care, Diagnostic prediction models
* Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Exeter Test Group, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as y
Data Loading...
