Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32629037›Full record

SynthesisChest2020

Tools to Promote Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT Scanning: A Systematic Review.

Mayuko Ito Fukunaga, Kyle Halligan, Jennifer Kodela, Shaun Toomey, Vanessa Fiorini Furtado, Roger Luckmann, Paul K J Han, Kathleen M Mazor, Sonal Singh

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Chest, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Role of Evidence-Based Information in Shared Decision-Making for Breast Reconstruction: Insights from the GRETA-V2 Decision Aid.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A Qualitative Exploration of Stakeholders' Preferences for Early-Stage Rectal Cancer Treatment.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Mayuko Ito FukunagaDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Worchester, MA; Division of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Population Quantitative Health Service, Worchester, MA; Meyers Primary Care Institute, Worcester, MA. Electronic address: mayuko.itofukunaga@umassmed.edu.
Kyle HalliganDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Worchester, MA.
Jennifer KodelaDepartment of Medicine, Worchester, MA.
Shaun ToomeyDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy & Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Worchester, MA.
Vanessa Fiorini FurtadoDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
Roger LuckmannDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Worchester, MA; Meyers Primary Care Institute, Worcester, MA.
Paul K J HanCenter for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME.
Kathleen M MazorDepartment of Medicine, Worchester, MA; Meyers Primary Care Institute, Worcester, MA.
Sonal SinghDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Worchester, MA; Meyers Primary Care Institute, Worcester, MA.

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
Prevention And Control of Cancer: Training for Change in Individuals and SystemsT32CA172009 · NCI · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI LEMON, STEPHENIE C., OCKENE, JUDITH K · 2019 to 2023
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA172009NHLBI NIH HHS K12 HL138049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: What kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools? STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening.

resultsAfter screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients' knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as "high" by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies).

interpretationEvidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools. CLINICAL

trial registrationPROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedDecision Support TechniquesEarly Detection of CancerHumansLung NeoplasmsPatient ParticipationRisk AssessmentTomography, X-Ray Computedcancer screeningdecision aidsdecision-makinglung neoplasmsshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID32629037
PMCPMC7783863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.