ArticleERJ open research2020
The impact of perceived risk, screening eligibility and worry on preference for lung cancer screening: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in ERJ open research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lung cancer screening disparities among screening-eligible older Black adults with 20 + years of tobacco use: Quantitative findings from a mixed-methods, quasi case-control study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- The needs and expectations of people eligible for lung cancer screening in Switzerland: A mixed method study.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Long-term outcome of surgery for lung cancer in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Review
- Willingness to participate in combination screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease in four European countries.European radiology · 2024Article
- LungCARE: Encouraging Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening-a Randomized Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Review
- Determinants of Willingness to Undergo Lung Cancer Screening among High-Risk Current and Ex-smokers in Sabah, Malaysia: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2023Article
- Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature.Respiratory research · 2022Article
- Implementation of lung cancer screening: what are the main issues?Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung cancer screening is effective at reducing lung cancer deaths when individuals at greatest risk are screened. Recruitment initiatives target all current and former smokers, of whom only some are eligible for screening, potentially leading to discordance between screening preference and eligibility in ineligible individuals. The objective of the present study was to identify factors associated with preference for screening among ever-smokers. Ever-smokers aged 55-80 years attending outpatient clinics at three Australian hospitals were invited. The survey recorded: 1) demographics; 2) objective lung cancer risk and screening eligibility using the Prostate Lung Colon Ovarian 2012 risk model; and 3) perceived lung cancer risk, worry about and seriousness of lung cancer using a validated questionnaire. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression identified predictors of screening preference. The survey was completed by 283 individuals (response rate 27%). Preference for screening was high (72%) with no significant difference between low-dose computed tomography screening-eligible and -ineligible individuals (77%
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.