↓ Skip to main content

Routine blood tests and probability of cancer in patients referred with non-specific serious symptoms: a cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Routine blood tests and probability of cancer in patients referred with non-specific serious symptoms: a cohort study
Published in
BMC Cancer, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3845-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esben Næser, Henrik Møller, Ulrich Fredberg, Jan Frystyk, Peter Vedsted

Abstract

Danish cancer patients have lower survival rates than patients in many other western countries. Half of the patients present with non-alarm symptoms and thus have a long diagnostic pathway. Consequently, an urgent referral pathway for patients with non-specific serious symptoms was implemented throughout Denmark in 2011-2012. As part of the diagnostic workup, a panel of blood tests are performed for all patients referred by their general practitioner (GP) to the urgent referral pathway. In this study, we analysed the probability of being diagnosed with cancer in GP-referred patients with abnormal blood test results. We performed a cohort study that included all patients aged 18 years or older referred by their GP to Silkeborg Regional Hospital for analysis of a panel of blood tests. All patients were followed for 3 months for a cancer diagnosis in the Danish Cancer Registry. The likelihood ratio and post-test probability of subsequently finding cancer were calculated in relation to abnormal blood test results. Among the 1499 patients included in the study, 12.2% were subsequently diagnosed with cancer. The probability of cancer increased with the number of abnormal blood tests. Patients with specific combinations of two abnormal blood tests had a 23-62% probability of cancer. Only a few single abnormal blood tests were linked with a high post-test probability of cancer, and most abnormalities were not specific to cancer. A number of specific abnormal blood tests and combinations of abnormal blood tests markedly increased the probability of cancer being diagnosed. Still, abnormal blood test results should be interpreted cautiously as most are non-specific to cancer. Thus, results from the blood test panel may strengthen the suspicion of cancer, but blood tests cannot be used as a stand-alone tool to rule out cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 14 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 18 43%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2021.
All research outputs
#5,100,684
of 21,457,683 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,220
of 7,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,740
of 444,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#99
of 531 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,457,683 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,755 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 531 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.