Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35113322›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2022

Effect of Incidental Findings Information on Lung Cancer Screening Intent: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Stephen D Clark, Daniel S Reuland, Alison T Brenner, Daniel E Jonas

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04432753 (Effect of Incidental Findings Information on Lung Cancer Screening Intent), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT04432753 nacompletednot on this map

Effect of Incidental Findings Information on Lung Cancer Screening Intent: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterRan2020 to 2020Enrolled419ConditionsNeoplasm of Lung, Decision Support Techniques, Mass ScreeningArmsLung Cancer Screening Decision Aid with Incidental Findings Information, Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid without Incidental Findings Information
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Knowledge translation strategies to enhance lung cancer screening programme implementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Stephen D ClarkDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1101 East Marshall St., Sanger Hall 1-010, Box, Richmond, VA, 980102, USA. Stephen.clark1@vcuhealth.org.
Daniel S ReulandCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Alison T BrennerDivision of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Daniel E JonasCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

HRSA HHS T32-HP14001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires decision aid use for lung cancer screening (LCS) shared decision-making. However, it does not require information about incidental findings, a potential harm of screening.

objectiveTo assess the effect of incidental findings information in an LCS decision aid on screening intent as well as knowledge and valuing of screening benefits and harms.

designRandomized controlled trial conducted online between July 16, 2020, and August 22, 2020.

participantsAdults 55-80 years, eligible for LCS.

interventionLCS video decision aid including information on incidental findings or a control video decision aid. MAIN MEASURES: Intent to undergo LCS; knowledge regarding the benefit and harms of LCS using six knowledge questions; and valuing of six benefits and harms using rating (1-5 scale, 5 most important) and ranking (ranked 1-6) exercises. KEY

resultsOf 427 eligible individuals approached, 348 (83.1%) completed the study (173 intervention, 175 control). Mean age was 64.5 years, 48.6% were male, 73.0% white, 76.3% with less than a college degree, and 64.1% with income < $50,000. There was no difference between the intervention and controls in percentage intending to pursue screening (70/173, 40.5% vs 73/175, 41.7%, diff 1.2%, 95% CI - 9.1 to 11.5%, p = 0.81). Intervention participants had a higher percentage of correct answers for the incidental findings knowledge than controls (164/173, 94.8% vs 129/175, 73.7%, 95% CI - 28.4 to - 13.8%, p < 0.01). Incidental findings had the fifth highest mean importance rating (4.0 ± 1.1) and the third highest mean ranking (3.6 ± 1.5). There was no difference in mean rating or ranking of incidental findings between intervention and control groups (rating 4.0 vs 3.9, diff 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2, 0.3, p = 0.51; ranking 3.6 vs 3.6, diff 0.02, 95% CI - 0.3, 0.3, p = 0.89).

conclusionsIncidental findings information in a LCS decision aid did not affect LCS intent, but it resulted in more informed individuals regarding these findings. In formulating screening preferences, incidental findings were less important than other benefits and harms.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432753.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsAdultAgedDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHumansIncidental FindingsMaleMass ScreeningMedicareMiddle AgedUnited StatesCancer screeningDecision aidsLung cancerPrimary careShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID35113322
PMCPMC9585131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.