Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20597136›Full record

ArticleCancer2010

Healthcare use after screening for lung cancer.

Margaret M Byrne, Tulay Koru-Sengul, Wei Zhao, Joel L Weissfeld, Mark S Roberts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [(18)F]Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography screening for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2013
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Margaret M ByrneDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida 33136, USA. mbyrne2@med.miami.edu
Tulay Koru-Sengul
Wei Zhao
Joel L Weissfeld
Mark S Roberts
University of Miami · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USSylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center · US

Funding

Resource and QOL Consequences of Lung Cancer ScreeningK07CA101812 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BYRNE, MARGARET M. · 2003 to 2007
$649k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA10181NCI NIH HHS K07 CA101812
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the benefits of lung cancer screening, all effects of screening need to be considered. The aim of this study was to determine whether screening had an effect on healthcare use, specifically whether use increased for those with a false-positive or indeterminate screening result.

methodsRecruited were 400 individuals participating in a lung cancer screening study at the University of Pittsburgh. Self-reported outpatient healthcare use information was collected for the 6 months before, 0 to 6 months after, and 6 to 12 months after screening. The screening outcomes were negative, indeterminate, and suspicious. Repeated-measures Poisson regression models were used to examine changes in use over time and how changes over time varied among the screening outcome groups.

resultsApproximately 58% of participants had a negative screening result, 36% had an indeterminate result, and approximately 6% had a suspicious result. The percentage of individuals who had any incidence of each type of outpatient use increased after screening, with the greatest increase noted for those with a suspicious screening result. Adjusted mean use significantly increased for nearly all types of use and for all 3 screening results categories in the 6 months after screening, but mostly declined to prescreening levels in the next 6 months.

conclusionsOutpatient healthcare use was found to increase after screening for all individuals who were screened for lung cancer, regardless of the screening finding. The cost of the lung-related visits alone was substantial. Therefore, if lung cancer screening prevalence is increased, attendant follow-up healthcare costs are also likely to increase.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareTomography, Spiral Computed

Identifiers

PMID20597136
PMCPMC3062436
OpenAlexW2082588166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.