4.6 Article

Diagnostic interval and mortality in colorectal cancer: U-shaped association demonstrated for three different datasets

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 65, 期 6, 页码 669-678

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.12.006

关键词

Delayed diagnosis; Waiting lists; Mortality; Colorectal cancer; Primary health care; Bias

资金

  1. Danish Medical Research Council
  2. Pharmaceutical Foundation
  3. Aarhus County Research Fund
  4. Danish Cancer Society
  5. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  6. Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation
  7. Aarhus University
  8. Western Danish Research Forum
  9. Dagmar Marshall's Fund
  10. Department of Health, United Kingdom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To test the theory of a U-shaped association between time from the first presentation of symptoms in primary care to the diagnosis (the diagnostic interval) and mortality after diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Study Design and Setting: Three population-based studies in Denmark and the United Kingdom using data from general practitioner's questionnaires, interviewer-administered patient questionnaires, and primary care records, respectively. Results: Despite variations in the potential selection and information bias when using different methods of identifying the date of first presentation, the association between the length of the diagnostic interval and 5-year mortality rate after the diagnosis of CRC was the same for all three types of data: displaying a U-shaped association with decreasing and subsequently increasing mortality with longer diagnostic intervals. Conclusion: Unknown confounding and in particular confounding by indication is likely to explain the counterintuitive findings of higher mortality among patients with very short diagnostic intervals, but cannot explain the increasing mortality with longer diagnostic intervals. The results support the theory that longer diagnostic intervals cause higher mortality in patients with CRC. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据