Table 3

Comparison of outcomes between trial arms

OutcomeInterventionControlCrude comparisonAdjusted comparison
% (n/N)% (n/N)OR95% CIOR95% CI
Patient was referred.51.1 (70/137)48.6 (189/389)1.110.70 to 1.751.130.73 to 1.76
Patient was referred via standard or 2WW pathway.48.9 (67/137)45.0 (172/382)1.170.73 to 1.881.170.75 to 1.83
 Patient was referred via standard pathway.26.3 (36/137)19.1 (73/382)1.510.90 to 2.531.280.74 to 2.20
 Patient was referred via 2WW pathway.22.6 (31/137)25.9 (99/382)0.840.42 to 1.660.980.55 to 1.74
Patient was referred via emergency pathway.0.7 (1/137)0.8 (3/382)0.930.10 to 8.94**
Patient was referred via ‘other’ route.1.5 (2/137)1.8 (7/382)
Referred patient had an oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD).76.8 (53/69)75.9 (142/187)
Referred patient was diagnosed with O-G cancer.2.9 (2/69)3.2 (6/188)0.910.17 to 4.730.940.17 to 5.30
Patient referred via standard route was diagnosed with O-G cancer.5.7 (2/35)1.4 (1/73)
Patient referred via 2WW was diagnosed with O-G cancer.0 (0/31)5 (5/98)****
Patient referred via emergency pathway was diagnosed with O-G cancer.0 (0/1)0 (0/3)
Patient was diagnosed with O-G cancer.1.5 (2/136)2.1 (8/390)0.710.15 to 3.430.860.18 to 4.13
Patient diagnosed with O-G cancer had been referred.100 (2/2)75 (6/8)****
Patient diagnosed with O-G cancer had been referred via standard or 2WW pathway.100 (2/2)75 (6/8)****
  • Model adjusted for practice size and region; referral status not known—four patients (one intervention and three controls); referral pathway not known—seven control patients; OGD status not known—three patients (one intervention and two controls); O-G cancer status not known—four patients (two interventions and two controls).

  • *Too few observations to fit the logistic regression model.

  • n, numerator; N, denominator; O-G, oesophago-gastric; OGD, oesophagogastroduodenoscopy; 2WW, 2-week wait .