ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2020
A Comparison of Smoking History in the Electronic Health Record With Self-Report.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Implementation of electronic signposting to interventions that prevent cancer: A realist review.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Reliability of Electronic Medical Record to Assess Patient's Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening: Analysis of Two Pilot Trials.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
- Leveraging large language models to extract smoking history from clinical notes for lung cancer surveillance.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Positive Screens Are More Likely in a National Lung Cancer Screening Registry Than the National Lung Screening Trial.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
- Real-World Smoking History Documentation and Identification of Lung Cancer Screening Candidates.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Improving Cardiovascular Disease Primary Prevention Treatment Thresholds in a New England Health Care System.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Physician preferences for an electronic lung cancer screening decision aid.The American journal of managed care · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Digital Outreach Strategies for Collecting Smoking Data: Pragmatic Randomized Trial.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Factors associated with lung cancer risk factor documentation.The American journal of managed care · 2023Observational
- Inaccuracies in electronic health records smoking data and a potential approach to address resulting underestimation in determining lung cancer screening eligibility.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Extraction of Electronic Health Record Data using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources for Automated Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2021Article
- Reply to Wilson: Risk-Stratifying Pulmonary Nodules.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionKnowing patients' smoking history helps guide who may benefit from preventive services such as lung cancer screening. The accuracy of smoking history electronic health records remains unclear.
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of data collected from a portal-based lung cancer screening decision aid. Participants of an academically affiliated health system, aged 55-76 years, completed an online survey that collected a detailed smoking history including years of smoking, years since quitting, and smoking intensity. Eligibility for lung cancer screening was defined using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria. Data analysis was performed May-December 2018, and data collection occurred between November 2016 and February 2017.
resultsA total of 336 participants completed the survey and were included in the analysis. Of 175 participants with self-reported smoking intensity, 72% had packs per day and 62% had pack-years recorded in the electronic health record. When present, smoking history in the electronic health records correlated well with self-reported years of smoking (r =0.78, p≤0.0001) and years since quitting (r =0.94, p≤0.0001). Self-reported smoking intensity, including pack-years (r =0.62, p<0.0001) and packs per day (r =0.65, p≤0.0001), was less correlated. Of those participants eligible for lung cancer screening by self-report, only 35% met criteria for screening by electronic health records data alone. Others were either incorrectly classified as ineligible (23%) or had incomplete data (41%).
conclusionsThe electronic health records frequently misses critical elements of a smoking history, and when present, it often underestimates smoking intensity, which may impact who receives lung cancer screening.
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.