Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33196807›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2020

Patient Adherence to Screening for Lung Cancer in the US: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Maria A Lopez-Olivo, Kristin G Maki, Noah J Choi, Richard M Hoffman, Ya-Chen Tina Shih, Lisa M Lowenstein, Rachel S Hicklen, Robert J Volk

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

101 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 170 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Patient Adherence to Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System-Recommended Screening Intervals in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Effect of Patient Navigation on Completion of Lung Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Populations.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2024
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Maria A Lopez-OlivoDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Kristin G MakiDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Noah J ChoiDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Richard M HoffmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine at the University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Ya-Chen Tina ShihDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Lisa M LowensteinDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Rachel S HicklenResearch Medical Library, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Robert J VolkDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI DIANE BODURKA · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Viral VectorP30CA086862 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Jon C.D. Houtman · 2000 to 2026
$70.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: To be effective in reducing deaths from lung cancer among high-risk current and former smokers, screening with low-dose computed tomography must be performed periodically. Objective: To examine lung cancer screening (LCS) adherence rates reported in the US, patient characteristics associated with adherence, and diagnostic testing rates after screening. Data Sources: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched for articles published in the English language from January 1, 2011, through February 28, 2020. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently selected prospective and retrospective cohort studies from 95 potentially relevant studies reporting patient LCS adherence. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality assessment. A random-effects model meta-analysis was conducted when at least 2 studies reported on the same outcome. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was LCS adherence after a baseline screening. Secondary measures were the patient characteristics associated with adherence and the rate of diagnostic testing after screening. Results: Fifteen studies with a total of 16 863 individuals were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled LCS adherence rate across all follow-up periods (range, 12-36 months) was 55% (95% CI, 44%-66%). Regarding patient characteristics associated with adherence rates, current smokers were less likely to adhere to LCS than former smokers (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.80); White patients were more likely to adhere to LCS than patients of races other than White (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.6-2.6); people 65 to 73 years of age were more likely to adhere to LCS than people 50 to 64 years of age (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9); and completion of 4 or more years of college was also associated with increased adherence compared with people not completing college (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1). Evidence was insufficient to evaluate diagnostic testing rates after abnormal screening scan results. The main source of variation was attributable to the eligibility criteria for screening used across studies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the pooled LCS adherence rate after a baseline screening was far lower than those observed in large randomized clinical trials of screening. Interventions to promote adherence to screening should prioritize current smokers and smokers from minority populations.

Indexed as

AgedCase-Control StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient ComplianceProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSmokersTomography, X-Ray ComputedUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33196807
PMCPMC7670313
OpenAlexW3100840451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.