ArticleJAMA network open2019
Cancer Screening Patterns Among Current, Former, and Never Smokers in the United States, 2010-2015.
Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient Adherence to Screening for Lung Cancer in the US: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2020Pooled it
- A Multilevel Approach to Improve Participation in Low-Dose CT for Lung Cancer Screening (Empower LCS): A Single-Arm Pilot Feasibility Clinical Trial.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Disability Status and Prostate Cancer Screening Among US Men Aged 55 to 69 Years.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Article
- Factors Associated with Adherence to Recommended Colorectal Surveillance Intervals in Lynch Syndrome.Cancers · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Adherence to Screening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Lung Cancer in a US Consortium.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Describing behavioral aspects of annual lung cancer screening participation: Application of the cognitive-social health information processing model.Preventive oncology & epidemiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Prevalence of Adult Asthma and History of Screening for Cancer Among US Adults: Results from 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 National Level Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines Among Age-Eligible US Women: Findings From NHIS 2021.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Assessing Factors Associated With Patient-Provider Discussions About Lung Cancer Screening Using Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization.Clinical lung cancer · 2025Article
- Determinants of cancer screening participation in Türkiye: a nationwide study of demographic, socioeconomic, and lifestyle factors.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Prevalence and determinants of cervical cancer screening among women aged 15-49 years in Tanzania: analysis of demographic and health survey 2022.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Predictors of Colon Cancer Screening Among the Saudi Population at Primary Healthcare Settings in Riyadh.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Prevalence and associated factors of mammography uptake among the women aged 45 years and above: policy implications from the longitudinal ageing study in India wave I survey.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Cancer screening adherence among e-cigarette users in the United States.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2025Article
- Utilization of colorectal cancer screening tests: a systematic review and time trend analysis of nationally representative data.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Review
- Innovations in Early Lung Cancer Detection: Tracing the Evolution and Advancements in Screening.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: National guidelines recommend screening for several cancer types, yet screening rates remain below target. To date, cancer screening patterns by smoking status, a major cancer risk factor, are unknown. Objective: To assess cancer screening patterns among individuals who never smoked (never smokers), formerly smoked (former smokers), and currently smoke (current smokers) in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed data from the National Health Interview Survey years 2010, 2013, and 2015. Adult participants (aged ≥18 years) who had never reported a cancer diagnosis were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from August 1, 2018, through February 1, 2019. Exposures: Receipt of cancer screening, including colonoscopy, mammography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and Papanicolaou test per the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs for undergoing cancer screening by smoking status. Among participants who received a specific screening test, AORs and 95% CIs of receiving the test within guideline-recommended intervals were also assessed. Results: Among 83 176 participants (45 851 [55.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 47 [18] years), 51 014 (61.3%) were never smokers; 17 235 (20.7%), former smokers; and 14 927 (17.9%), current smokers. Compared with never smokers, current smokers were less likely to ever have received a colonoscopy (43.8% vs 57.7%; AOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82; P < .001), mammogram (88.8% vs 93.3%; AOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P = .001), or prostate-specific antigen test (46.1% vs 60.8%; AOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.90; P = .001). Among those who had ever received a specific screening test, current smokers were less likely to have undergone colonoscopy (92.1% vs 95.1%; AOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96; P = .02), mammography (62.4% vs 79.4%; AOR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45-0.60; P < .001), or Papanicolaou test (80.9% vs 90.8%; AOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67; P < .001) within the recommended time frame compared with never smokers. Former smokers were more likely than never smokers to undergo any of the screening studies evaluated, with the exception of prostate-specific antigen screening (colonoscopy, 65.2% vs 57.7%; AOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.12-1.30; P < .001; mammography, 95.7% vs 93.3%; AOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.70; P = .01; Papanicolaou test, 97.6% vs 91.4%; AOR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.93-3.26; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that current smokers appeared to be less likely to receive guideline-concordant screening studies for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer compared with never smokers. Further research is needed to identify barriers to screening among current smokers with the goal of increasing acceptance and uptake of cancer screening among this population at high risk of cancer.
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.