Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36040773›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2022

Assessing Information Available for Health Professionals and Potential Participants on Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites: Cross-sectional Study.

Rachael H Dodd, Chenyue Zhang, Ashleigh R Sharman, Julie Carlton, Ruijin Tang, Nicole M Rankin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Rachael H DoddSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8080-6359
Chenyue ZhangSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6099-1008
Ashleigh R SharmanSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9342-5061
Julie CarltonSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1694-6768
Ruijin TangSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5768-6224
Nicole M RankinSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0715-1405

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated recommendations for lung cancer screening in 2021, adjusting the age of screening to 50 years (from 55 years) and reducing the number of pack-years used to estimate total firsthand cigarette smoke exposure to 20 (from 30). With many individuals using the internet to find health care information, it is important to understand what information is available for individuals contemplating lung cancer screening.

objectiveThis study aimed to assess the eligibility criteria and information available on lung cancer screening program websites for both health professionals and potential screening participants.

methodsA descriptive cross-sectional analysis of 151 lung cancer screening program websites of academic (n=76) and community medical centers (n=75) in the United States with information for health professionals and potential screening participants was conducted in March 2021. Presentation of eligibility criteria for potential screening participants and presence of information available specific to health professionals about lung cancer screening were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included presentation of information about cost and smoking cessation, inclusion of an online risk assessment tool, mention of any clinical guidelines, and use of multimedia to present information.

resultsEligibility criteria for lung cancer screening was included in nearly all 151 websites (n=142, 94%), as well as age range (n=139, 92.1%) and smoking history (n=141, 93.4%). Age was only consistent with the latest recommendations in 14.5% (n=22) of websites, and no websites had updated smoking history. Half the websites (n=76, 50.3%) mentioned screening costs as related to the type of insurance held. A total of 23 (15.2%) websites featured an online assessment tool to determine eligibility. The same proportion (n=23, 15.2%) hosted information specifically for health professionals. In total, 44 (29.1%) websites referred to smoking cessation, and 46 (30.5%) websites used multimedia to present information, such as short videos or podcasts.

conclusionsMost websites of US lung cancer screening programs provide information about eligibility criteria, but this is not consistent and has not been updated across all websites following the latest USPSTF recommendations. Online resources require updating to present standardized information that is accessible for all.

Indexed as

cancercancer screeningcommunicationcross-sectional studylung cancerlung cancer screeningrecommendationscreeningscreening program

Identifiers

PMID36040773
PMCPMC9472061

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.