ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2002
Genetic testing for lung cancer risk: if physicians can do it, should they?
Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using a genetic/clinical risk score to stop smoking (GeTSS): randomised controlled trial.BMC research notes · 2017Trial
- Review
- Association of education & lifestyle factors with the perception of genetic knowledge on the development of lung cancer.The Indian journal of medical research · 2016Article
- Risk perceptions and family history of lung cancer: differences by smoking status.Public health genomics · 2011Article
- Tobacco cessation in primary care: maximizing intervention strategies.Clinical medicine & research · 2003Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in genetics have increased our ability to assess an individual's genetic risk for disease. There is a hypothesis that genetic test results will motivate high-risk individuals to reduce harmful exposures, to increase their surveillance for disease, or to seek preventive treatments. However, genetic testing for genes associated with an increased risk of lung cancer would not change physicians' recommendations regarding smoking cessation. Limited studies suggest that test results that demonstrate an increased risk of lung cancer do not improve smoking cessation success. These test results may even distort an individual's risk perceptions. Before recommending genetic testing to assess risk for disease, physicians need to consider whether knowledge about genetic susceptibility will alter patient management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.