Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36474178›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2022

Construction and case study of a novel lung cancer risk index.

Ali Faghani, Lei Guo, Margaret E Wright, M Courtney Hughes, Mahdi Vaezi

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Ali Faghani *College of Engineering and Engineering Technology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA.
Lei Guo *School of Interdisciplinary Health Professions, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2055-7618
Margaret E WrightUniversity of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4410-4157
M Courtney HughesSchool of Health Studies, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8699-5701
Mahdi VaeziCollege of Engineering and Engineering Technology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA. mvaezi@niu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8649-1573

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study constructs a lung cancer risk index (LCRI) that incorporates many modifiable risk factors using an easily reproducible and adaptable method that relies on publicly available data.

methodsWe used meta-analysis followed by Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to generate a lung cancer risk index (LCRI) that incorporates seven modifiable risk factors (active smoking, indoor air pollution, occupational exposure, alcohol consumption, secondhand smoke exposure, outdoor air pollution, and radon exposure) for lung cancer. Using county-level population data, we then performed a case study in which we tailored the LCRI for use in the state of Illinois (LCRI

resultsFor both the LCRI and the LCRI

conclusionThis study presents an index that incorporates multiple modifiable risk factors for lung cancer into one composite score. Since the LCRI allows data comprising the composite score to vary based on the location of interest, this measurement tool can be used for any geographic location where population-based data for individual risk factors exist. Researchers, policymakers, and public health professionals may utilize this framework to determine areas that are most in need of lung cancer-related interventions and resources.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsHumansAnalytic hierarchy processesLung cancerMeta-analysisRisk factorsRisk index

Identifiers

PMID36474178
PMCPMC9724373

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.