ArticleJournal of epidemiology2016
The Effect of False-Positive Results on Subsequent Participation in Chest X-ray Screening for Lung Cancer.
Article in Journal of epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh attendance rates and regular participation in disease screening programs are important contributors to program effectiveness. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of an initial false-positive result in chest X-ray screening for lung cancer on subsequent screening participation.
methodsThis historical cohort study analyzed individuals who first participated in a lung cancer screening program conducted by Yokohama City between April 2007 and March 2011, and these participants were retrospectively tracked until March 2013. Subsequent screening participation was compared between participants with false-positive results and those with negative results in evaluation periods between 365 (for the primary outcome) and 730 days. The association of screening results with subsequent participation was evaluated using a generalized linear regression model, with adjustment for characteristics of patients and screening.
resultsThe proportions of subsequent screening participation within 365 days were 12.9% in 3132 participants with false-positive results and 6.7% in 15 737 participants with negative results. Although the differences in attendance rates were reduced with longer cutoffs, participants with false-positive results were consistently more likely to attend subsequent screening than patients with negative results (P < 0.01). The predictors of subsequent screening participation were false-positive results (risk ratio [RR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.92), older age (RR 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23), male sex (RR 1.46; 95% CI, 1.29-1.64), being a current smoker (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.93), current employment (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.90), and being screened at a hospital cancer center (vs public health centers; RR 1.36; 95% CI, 1.15-1.60).
conclusionsOur findings indicated that subsequent participation in lung cancer screening was more likely among participants with false-positive results in an initial screening than patients with negative results.
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.