ArticleJAMA network open2021
Adherence to Follow-up Testing Recommendations in US Veterans Screened for Lung Cancer, 2015-2019.
Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07073898 (Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial
Who cites it
58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers to cancer screening uptake and approaches to overcome them: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Association between Chinese herbal medicine and the composite outcome of repeat revascularization and in-stent restenosis in patients with chronic coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective cohort study.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2026Article
- Beyond centralization: what community lung cancer screening workflows could reveal about the components that matter.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026Article
- Is This Calculator Broken?: Comparative Performance of Lung Nodule Risk Assessment Calculators in a High-Prevalence Cohort.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Article
- Predictive value of combined TyG-BMI and hsCRP for clinical outcomes in patients with chronic coronary syndrome undergoing PCI: a retrospective cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- "I Was Expecting the Worst": Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Lung Cancer Screening in Black and Hispanic Communities.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Association of preoperative albumin-corrected anion gap with 28-day mortality in cardiac surgery patients: a retrospective cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Describing behavioral aspects of annual lung cancer screening participation: Application of the cognitive-social health information processing model.Preventive oncology & epidemiology · 2026Article
- Real-world data and evidence: pioneering frontiers in precision oncology.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2025Review
- Article
- A pragmatic pre-post intervention trial to address adherence to lung cancer screening follow-up in community settings (the ACCELL trial): Study protocol.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Lactate-to-albumin ratio as an independent predictor of 28-day ICU mortality in patients with hypertension: a retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility, Uptake, and Adherence in Puerto Rico, 2022.JTO clinical and research reports · 2025Article
- A Novel Automated Algorithm to Identify Lung Cancer Screening from Free Text of Radiology Orders.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Barriers to Accessing Lung Cancer Screening and Thoracic Surgery in US Rural Communities.Current challenges in thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Equity and Opportunities in Lung Cancer Care-Addressing Disparities, Challenges, and Pathways Forward.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on byBeyond the2022
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality with close follow-up and adherence to management recommendations. Little is known about factors associated with adherence to LCS in real-world practice, with data limited to case series from selected LCS programs. Objective: To analyze adherence to follow-up based on standardized follow-up recommendations in a national cohort and to identify factors associated with delayed or absent follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities across the US. Veterans were screened for lung cancer between 2015 to 2019 with sufficient follow-up time to receive recommended evaluation. Patient- and facility-level logistic regression analyses were performed. Data were analyzed from November 26, 2019, to December 16, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receipt of the recommended next step after initial LCS according to Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS) category, as captured in VHA or Medicare claims. Results: Of 28 294 veterans (26 835 [94.8%] men; 21 969 individuals [77.6%] were White; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [5.5] years) who had an initial LCS examination, 17 863 veterans (63.1%) underwent recommended follow-up within the expected timeframe, whereas 3696 veterans (13.1%) underwent late evaluation, and 4439 veterans (15.7%) had no apparent evaluation. Facility-level differences were associated with 9.2% of the observed variation in rates of late or absent evaluation. In multivariable-adjusted models, Black veterans (odds ratio [OR], 1.19 [95% CI, 1.10-1.29]), veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.03-1.23]), veterans with substance use disorders (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.01-1.22]), veterans with lower income (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.98]), and those living at a greater distance from a VHA facility (OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02-1.10]) were more likely to experience delayed or no follow-up; veterans with higher risk findings (Lung-RADS category 4 vs Lung-RADS category 1: OR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.43]) and those screened in high LCS volume facilities (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.21-0.67]) or academic facilities (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80-0.92]) were less likely to experience delayed or no follow-up. In sensitivity analyses, varying how stringently adherence was defined, expected evaluation ranged from 14 486 veterans (49.7%) under stringent definitions to 20 578 veterans (78.8%) under liberal definitions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study that captured follow-up care from the integrated VHA health care system and Medicare, less than two-thirds of patients received timely recommended follow-up after initial LCS, with higher risk of delayed or absent follow-up among marginalized populations, such as Black individuals, individuals with mental health disorders, and individuals with low income, that have long experienced disparities in lung cancer outcomes. Future work should focus on identifying facilities that promote high adherence and disseminating successful strategies to promote equity in LCS among marginalized 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.