Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33835312›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2021

A Comparison of Web-Based Cancer Risk Calculators That Inform Shared Decision-making for Lung Cancer Screening.

Frederick R Kates, Ryan Romero, Daniel Jones, Jacqueline Egelfeld, Santanu Datta

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Frederick R KatesDepartment of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. kates.rick@phhp.ufl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7216-3819
Ryan RomeroBachelor of Public Health, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Daniel JonesBachelor of Science in Statistics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Jacqueline EgelfeldBachelor of Health Science, College of Public Health and Health Professions, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Santanu DattaDepartment of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
University of Florida · USUniversity of Florida Health Science Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTo align patient preferences and understanding with harm-benefit perception, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandates that providers engage patients in a collaborative shared decision-making (SDM) visit before LDCT. Nonetheless, patients and providers often turn instead to the web for help making decisions. Several web-based lung cancer risk calculators (LCRCs) provide risk predictions and screening recommendations; however, the accuracy, consistency, and subsequent user interpretation of these predictions between LCRCs is ambiguous. We conducted a systematic review to assess this variability.

designThrough a systematic Internet search, we identified 10 publicly available LCRCs and categorized their input variables: demographic factors, cancer history, smoking status, and personal/environmental factors. To assess variance in LCRC risk prediction outputs, we developed 16 hypothetical patients along a risk continuum, illustrated by randomly assigned input variables, and individually compared them to each LCRC against the empirically validated "gold-standard" PLCO risk model in order to evaluate the accuracy of the LCRCs within identical time-windows.

resultsFrom the inclusion criteria, 11 calculators were initially identified. The analyzed calculators also vary in output characteristics and risk depiction for hypothetical patients. There were 13 total instances across ten hypothetical patients in which the sample standard error exceeded the mean risk percentage across all general samples and set standard calculations. The largest measured difference is 16.49% for patient 8, and the smallest difference is 0.01% for patient 2. The largest measured difference is 16.49% for patient 8, and the smallest difference is 0.01% for patient 2.

conclusionSubstantial variability in the depiction of lung cancer risk for hypothetical patients exists across the web-based LCRCs due to their respective inputs and risk prediction models. To foster informed decision-making in the SDM-LDCT context, the input variables, risk prediction models, risk depiction, and screening recommendations must be standardized to best practice.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsAgedDecision Making, SharedHumansInternetMedicareUnited StatesCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.Sdecision-making, sharedEarly detection of cancerrisk calculatorstomography, x-ray computed

Identifiers

PMID33835312
PMCPMC8175495
OpenAlexW3149837741

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.