Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31788415›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2019

Association of invitation to lung cancer screening and tobacco use outcomes in a VA demonstration project.

Steven S Fu, Anne C Melzer, Angela E Fabbrini, Kathryn L Rice, Barbara Clothier, David B Nelson, Elizabeth A Doro, Melissa R Partin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steven S FuMinneapolis VA Health Care System, Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Anne C MelzerMinneapolis VA Health Care System, Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Angela E FabbriniMinneapolis VA Health Care System, Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Kathryn L RiceMinneapolis VA Health Care System, Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Barbara ClothierMinneapolis VA Health Care System, Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
David B NelsonMinneapolis VA Health Care System, Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Elizabeth A DoroMinneapolis VA Health Care System, Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Melissa R PartinMinneapolis VA Health Care System, Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Minneapolis VA Health Care System · USUniversity of Minnesota Medical Center · US

Funding

Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes ResearchI50HX001228 · VA · MINNEAPOLIS VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI FU, STEVEN · 2015 to 2015
–
HSRD VA I50 HX001228
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A potential unintended consequence of lung cancer screening (LCS) is an adverse effect on smoking behaviors. This has been difficult to assess in previous randomized clinical trials. Our goal was to determine whether cessation and relapse behaviors differ between Veterans directly invited (DI) to participate in LCS compared to usual care (UC). We conducted a longitudinal survey of tobacco use outcomes among Veterans (Minneapolis VA) from 2014 to 2015, randomized (2:1) to DI versus UC and stratified by baseline smoking status (current/former). Within the DI group, we explored differences between those who did and did not choose to undergo LCS. A total of 979 patients (n = 660 DI, n = 319 UC) returned the survey at a median of 484 days. Among current smokers (n = 488), smoking abstinence rates and cessation attempts did not differ between DI and UC groups. More baseline smokers in DI were non-daily smokers at follow-up compared to those in UC (25.3% vs 15.6%, OR 1.97 95%CI 1.15-3.36). A significant proportion of former smokers at baseline relapsed, with 17% overall indicating past 30-day smoking. This did not differ between arms. Of those invited to LCS, smoking outcomes did not significantly differ between those who chose to be screened (161/660) versus not. This randomized program evaluation of smoking behaviors in the context of invitation to LCS observed no adverse or beneficial effects on tobacco cessation or relapse among participants invited to LCS, or among those who completed screening. As LCS programs scale and spread nationally, effective cessation programs will be essential.

Indexed as

Early detection of cancerLung cancer screeningLung neoplasmsSmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID31788415
PMCPMC6879990
OpenAlexW2989250362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.