Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

Author response

Stephen Bradley
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (716): 106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp22X718601
Stephen Bradley
Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds. Email:
Roles: Clinical Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: medsbra@leeds.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Many thanks for reading our paper ‘Associations between general practice characteristics and chest X-ray rate’ and for your comments.

In the paper we discuss some of the evidence around numbers of chest X-rays requested by GPs and lung cancer outcomes. We noted that, although we feel that it is plausible that increasing the number of chest X-rays requested for patients who have symptoms who are at risk of lung cancer could improve outcomes, the evidence base regarding this remains equivocal. We agree that the research presented in our paper would not warrant a definitive assertion that increasing numbers of chest X-rays performed in general practice improves outcomes. While we feel such an association is plausible, and discussed evidence that suggests that increasing frequency of chest X-ray investigations in patients who have symptoms may contribute to earlier-stage diagnosis,1 we did not assert that such an association exists.

The study examined the numbers of chest X-rays performed in relation to characteristics of practices and their populations. The study did not include data on cancer outcomes, therefore we would not have been able to prove any effect on outcomes caused by differences in chest X-ray rates, and this was not an objective of the study. However, we agree this is an important research question and we are planning to undertake a study that does examine chest X-ray rates of general practices in relation to lung cancer outcomes.

We agree that screening of asymptomatic patients using low-dose CT will have an increasingly important role in lung cancer detection over the coming years. However, because less than half of all patients with lung cancer fulfil eligibility criteria for screening,2 and even among those eligible only about half will attend,3 screening will only ever detect a small proportion of lung cancers overall. Thus, even if CT screening for lung cancer is rolled out in the UK and elsewhere, the role of GPs in detecting symptomatic disease will remain crucial.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2022

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Kennedy MPT,
    2. Cheyne L,
    3. Darby M,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Lung cancer stage-shift following a symptom awareness campaign. Thorax 73, 12, 1128–1136.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Gracie K,
    2. Kennedy MPT,
    3. Esterbrook G,
    4. et al.
    (2019) The proportion of lung cancer patients attending UK lung cancer clinics who would have been eligible for low-dose CT screening. Eur Respir J 54, 2, 1802221, doi:10.1183/13993003.02221-2018.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Quaife SL,
    2. Ruparel M,
    3. Dickson JL,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): randomized controlled clinical trial testing targeted invitation materials. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 201, 8, 965–975, doi:10.1164/rccm.201905-0946OC.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 72 (716)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 72, Issue 716
March 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Author response
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Author response
Stephen Bradley
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (716): 106. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp22X718601

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Author response
Stephen Bradley
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (716): 106. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp22X718601
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Socioeconomic differences in help seeking for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19
  • Author response
  • Personal lists are not impractical. Look at Norway!
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242