Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Two publications from the Department's cancer diagnostics researchers are featured in the British Journal of General Practice's most read research articles of 2018.

The British Journal of General Practice has announced their most read research of articles of 2018 in a Twitter thread.

The paper 'Weight loss as a predictor of cancer in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis' (Brian D Nicholson, William Hamilton, Jack O’Sullivan, Paul Aveyard and Richard Hobbs) was listed at number four:

 

Top 10 - 4 - weight loss.PNG

No. 4 – Weight loss as a predictor of cancer – Coding for unintended weight loss in the general practice record is associated with a >3% likelihood of a cancer diagnosis in patients ≥60 years @BrianDNicholson @BoomboomchiefsT @DrJackOsullivan https://t.co/heNmFkBp2f pic.twitter.com/Rvue7KXfjv

— BJGP (@BJGPjournal) February 7, 2019

'Early detection of multiple myeloma in primary care using blood tests: a case–control study in primary care' (Constantinos Koshiaris, Ann Van den Bruel, Jason L Oke, Brian D Nicholson, Elizabeth Shephard, Mick Braddick and William Hamilton) was the sixth most read article last year:

 

Top 10 - 6 - blood tests.PNG

No. 6 – Simple blood tests to detect rare cancer – Plasma viscosity and ESR are better for ruling in and out the diagnosis of multiple myeloma than C-reactive protein @constantinos989 @annvdbruel @oke_jason @BrianDNicholson @BoomboomchiefsT @braddick_mick https://t.co/k6cXyyGVUc pic.twitter.com/LkjTsHl8pG

— BJGP (@BJGPjournal) February 7, 2019

 

Contact our communications team

Opinions expressed are those of the authors and not of Oxford University. Readers' comments will be moderated - see our guidelines for further information.