Search

In recent years there has been increasing awareness of problems that have undermined trust in medical research. This review outlines some of the most important issues including research culture, reporting biases, and statistical and methodological issues. It examines measures that have been instituted to address these problems and explores the success and limitations of these measures. The paper concludes by proposing three achievable actions which could be implemented to deliver significantly improved transparency and mitigation of bias. These measures are as follows: (1) mandatory registration of interests by those involved in research; (2) that journals support the 'registered reports' publication format; and (3) that comprehensive study documentation for all publicly funded research be made available on a World Health Organization research repository. We suggest that achieving such measures requires a broad-based campaign which mobilises public opinion. We invite readers to feedback on the proposed actions and to join us in calling for their implementation.

Background: Despite increasing evidence of the benefits of early access to palliative care, many patients do not receive palliative care in a timely manner. A systematic approach in primary care can facilitate earlier identification of patients with potential palliative care needs and prompt further assessment., Aim: To identify existing screening tools for identification of patients with advanced progressive diseases who are likely to have palliative care needs in primary healthcare and evaluate their accuracy., Design: Systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42019111568)., Data Sources: Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched from inception to March 2019., Results: From 4,127 unique articles screened, 25 reported the use or development of 10 screening tools. Most tools use prediction of death and/or deterioration as a proxy for the identification of people with potential palliative care needs. The tools are based on a wide range of general and disease-specific indicators. The accuracy of five tools was assessed in eight studies; these tools differed significantly in their ability to identify patients with potential palliative care needs with sensitivity ranging from 3% to 94% and specificity ranging from 26% to 99%., Conclusion: The ability of current screening tools to identify patients with advanced progressive diseases who are likely to have palliative care needs in primary care is limited. Further research is needed to identify standardised screening processes that are based not only on predicting mortality and deterioration but also on anticipating the palliative care needs and predicting the rate and course of functional decline. This would prompt a comprehensive assessment to identify and meet their needs on time.

Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe BMJ has judged that there are no disqualifying financial ties to commercial companies. The authors declare the following other interests: none. Further details of The BMJ policy on financial interests are here: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists/declaration-competing-interests

Background: Despite increasing use of computed tomography (CT), chest X-ray remains the first-line investigation for suspected lung cancer in primary care in the UK. No systematic review evidence exists as to the sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in people presenting with symptoms., Aim: To estimate the sensitivity of chest X-ray for detecting lung cancer in symptomatic people., Design and Setting: A systematic review was conducted to determine the sensitivity of chest X-ray for the detection of lung cancer., Method: Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched; a grey literature search was also performed., Results: A total of 21 studies met the eligibility criteria. Almost all were of poor quality. Only one study had the diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray as its primary objective. Most articles were case studies with a high risk of bias. Several were drawn from non-representative groups, for example, specific presentations, histological subtypes, or comorbidities. Only three studies had a low risk of bias. Two primary care studies reported sensitivities of 76.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 64.5 to 84.2%) and 79.3% (95% CI = 67.6 to 91.0%). One secondary care study reported a sensitivity of 79.7% (95% CI = 72.7 to 86.8%)., Conclusion: Though there is a paucity of evidence, the highest-quality studies suggest that the sensitivity of chest X-ray for symptomatic lung cancer is only 77% to 80%. GPs should consider if further investigation is necessary in high-risk patients who have had a negative chest X-ray., (© British Journal of General Practice 2019.)

Significant advances in the management of both early and advanced stage lung cancer have not yet led to the scale of improved outcomes which have been achieved in other cancers over the last 40 years. Diagnosis of lung cancer at the earliest stage of disease is strongly associated with improved survival. Therefore, although recent advances in oncology may herald breakthroughs in effective treatment, achieving early diagnosis will remain crucial to obtaining optimal outcomes. This is challenging, as most lung cancer symptoms are non-specific or are common respiratory symptoms which usually represent benign disease. Identification of patients at risk of lung cancer who require further investigation is an important responsibility for general practitioners (GPs). Diagnosis has historically relied upon plain chest X-ray (CXR), organised in response to symptoms. The sensitivity of this modality, however, compares unfavourably with that of computed tomography (CT). In some jurisdictions screening high-risk individuals with low dose CT (LDCT) is now recommended. However uptake remains low and the eligibility for screening programmes is restricted. Therefore, even if screening is widely adopted, most patients will continue to be diagnosed after presenting with symptoms. Achieving early diagnosis requires GPs to maintain an appropriate level of suspicion and readiness to investigate in high-risk patients or those with non-resolving symptoms. This article discusses the early detection of lung cancer from a primary care perspective. We outline risk factors and epidemiology, the role of screening and offer guidance on the recognition of symptomatic presentation and the investigation and referral of suspected lung cancer.

In contrast to secondary care, where handwritten records remain widespread, electronic patient records have long been a key feature of UK general practice. By 1996, 96% of general practices were computerised and now almost every primary care consultation in the UK is recorded on a computerised clinical system. Consequently, we now have a vast repository of patient health data that spans decades, which could be used to address a range of important research questions. Unfortunately, accessing primary care data for health researchers can be a burdensome, confusing and time-consuming process. Understanding the way in which primary care data are recorded and 'coded' is not intuitive to those unfamiliar with general practice. The requirements of information governance mean that some data, or data presented in particular ways, are not available at all. This review provides a practical overview of the types of data recorded in primary care, the bodies responsible for them and how they can be accessed.