SynthesisJAMA network open2020
Patient Adherence to Screening for Lung Cancer in the US: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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.
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
101 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 170 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Patient barriers and facilitators to lung cancer screening uptake and intention to screen: a systematic review using the Theoretical Domains Framework.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Pooled it
- Facilitators and Barriers to Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening: A Framework-Driven Systematic Review.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Pooled it
- 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 · 2022Pooled it
- Health Communication and Stepped Reminders Interventions for Lung Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Effect of Patient Navigation on Completion of Lung Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Populations.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2024Trial
- Prevalence of preventive cancer screening in skin cancer survivors is greater compared to non-cancer individuals: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.International journal of women's dermatology · 2026Article
- Long-term efficacy and adherence of a lung cancer screening strategy with extended LDCT intervals: Results from the BioMILD trial.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Benefits and harms of lung cancer screening strategies in Argentina: a modeling study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Health beliefs and lung cancer screening uptake among eligible Asian Americans in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Progress and Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening in Japan: A Bayesian Analysis Toward Achieving Health Japan 21 Targets.Cancers · 2026Article
- The landscape of lung cancer screening globally: a comparison of established programs and estimates of eligibility to participate.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2026Review
- Article
- Incidental discovery of second primary lung tumors in breast cancer patients: an institutional case series.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Patient and Healthcare Provider Barriers in the LDCT Lung Cancer Screening Continuum.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Patients with high distressed communities index score are at risk for "no-show" to lung cancer screening appointments.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Hospital follow-up adherence among screen-positive lung cancer utilizing a mobile LDCT in community in Hainan, China: a prospective cohort study.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of a decision quality instrument for lung cancer screening decisions (DQI-LCS).BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.