Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31631776›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2019

Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT.

Paul K J Han, Christine Lary, Adam Black, Caitlin Gutheil, Hayley Mandeville, Jason Yahwak, Mayuko Fukunaga

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Testing Explanations for Skepticism of Personalized Risk Information.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Lung cancer screening: targeting the hard to reach-a review.Translational lung cancer research · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

7 authors.

Paul K J HanCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0165-1940
Christine LaryCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME, USA.
Adam BlackCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME, USA.
Caitlin GutheilCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME, USA.
Hayley MandevilleCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME, USA.
Jason YahwakChest Medicine Associates, Portland, ME, USA.
Mayuko FukunagaDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA, USA.

Funding

K12 Cardiopulmonary Implementation Science Scholars ProgramK12HL138049 · NHLBI · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI LEMON, STEPHENIE C., LINDENAUER, PETER KYLE · 2017 to 2021
$2.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS K12 HL138049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaineMaleMiddle AgedPrecision MedicineReferral and ConsultationRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSmoking CessationSurveys and QuestionnairesTomography, X-Ray Computedlung cancerrisk perceptionsrisk predictionscreening

Identifiers

PMID31631776
PMCPMC7335264

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.