Oral Cancer: Delays in Referral and Diagnosis Persist
Abstract
Oral cancer accounts for around 1% of all new cancers diagnosed in the United Kingdom every year. Mortality rates remain relatively high and prognosis is worst in cases of more advanced disease at time of diagnosis. Early identification of malignant lesions and speedy referral to a specialist for treatment are therefore important. The reasons and extent of the delays at the different stages between a patient first noticing an oral lesion and attending a health care professional and then being referred for specialist care have previously been studied and consistently found to be longer than desired. The National Oral Cancer Awareness Week (NOCAW), first run in 1995, aimed to increase the awareness of oral cancer amongst health care professionals and the public. It has since been repeated and is now an annual event. Alongside publications by the British Dental Association and guidelines circulated by the Department of Health on oral cancer diagnosis and referral, it is hoped this will lead to a decrease in the delay between the onset of oral cancer and patients receiving appropriate treatment. We looked at the previously published data on referral delay in oral cancer both in the United Kingdom and overseas and then identified delays in referral of oral cancer patients in a region that had been studied before NOCAW was introduced, to see if this was having any effect on referral delays. We found that despite the great publicity raised by NOCAW and the other publications and cou…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Poor referral access can hinder patients' opportunity for proper investigations, resulting in patients waiting longer or being sent to an unsuitable specialist.
“Poor referral access can hinder patients’ opportunity for proper investigations, resulting in patients waiting longer or being sent to an unsuitable specialist [48,49].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 121
- Authors
- McLeod, N. M. H., Saeed, N. R., & Ali, E. A.
- Affiliations
- Cheltenham General Hospital (GB)
- John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- McLeod, N M H
- Venue
- British Dental Journal
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 198
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 681-684
- ISSN
- 0007-0610 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-5373
- OpenAlex
- W2041234213
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 6.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- BDJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral Health Pathology and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Keywords
- oral cancer, late referral, patient delay, early diagnosis, specialist referral, oral cancer awareness, clinical audit, guideline implementation, oral lesions
- MeSH terms
- Anniversaries and Special Events, General Practice, Dental, United Kingdom, Humans, Mouth Neoplasms, Patient Education as Topic, Referral and Consultation, Societies, Dental, Time Factors, Guidelines as Topic, Early Diagnosis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review