ArticleLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022
Utilisation of primary care electronic patient records for identification and targeted invitation of individuals to a lung cancer screening programme.
Article in Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health System Factors in Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis: A HEADSpAcE Consortium Qualitative Study in Glasgow and Montevideo.Head & neck · 2026Article
- Article
- Reliability of Electronic Medical Record to Assess Patient's Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening: Analysis of Two Pilot Trials.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
- Investigating the association between recorded smoking cessation interventions and smoking cessation in people living with cardiovascular disease using UK general practice data.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Improving uptake of lung cancer screening: an observational study on the impact of timed appointments and reminders.Thorax · 2025Observational
- Smoking data quality of primary care practices in comparison with smoking data from the New Zealand Māori and Pacific abdominal aortic aneurysm screening programme: an observational study.BMC public health · 2024Observational
- Article
- Assessing, updating and utilising primary care smoking records for lung cancer screening.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
- Assessing eligibility for lung cancer screening using parsimonious ensemble machine learning models: A development and validation study.PLoS medicine · 2023Article
- What should the role of primary care be in lung cancer screening?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility is largely determined by tobacco consumption. Primary care smoking data could guide LCS invitation and eligibility assessment. We present observational data from the SUMMIT Study, where individual self-reported smoking status was concordant with primary care records in 75.3%. However, 10.3% demonstrated inconsistencies between historic and most recent smoking status documentation. Quantified tobacco consumption was frequently missing, precluding direct LCS eligibility assessment. Primary care recorded "ever-smoker" status, encompassing both recent and historic documentation, can be used to target LCS invitation. Identifying those with missing or erroneous "never-smoker" smoking status is crucial for equitable invitation to LCS.
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.