ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2023
LungCARE: Encouraging Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening-a Randomized Trial.
Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03862001 (Lung Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Lung Cancer Screening: A Multilevel Intervention
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Article
- Article
- Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Previsit Preparation for Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care Using a Paper Decision Aid and an Automated Text Messaging Program: Quasi-Experimental Pilot Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Priorities and strategy for the implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in thoracic surgery.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Inadequate Uptake of USPSTF-Recommended Low Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk due to age and smoking history after a shared decision-making conversation. However, little is known about best strategies for incorporating shared decision-making, especially in a busy primary care setting.
objectiveTo develop a novel tool, Lung Cancer Assessment of Risk and Education (LungCARE) to guide LCS decisions among eligible primary care patients.
designPilot cluster randomized controlled trial of LungCARE versus usual care.
participantsPatients of providers in a university primary care clinic, who met criteria for LCS.
interventionProviders were randomized to LungCARE intervention or control. LungCARE participants completed a computer tablet-based video assessment of lung cancer educational needs in the waiting room prior to a primary care visit. Patient and provider both received a summary handout of patient concerns and responses. MAIN MEASURES: All eligible patients completed baseline interviews by telephone. One week after the index visit, participants completed a follow-up telephone survey that assessed patient-physician discussion of LCS, referral to and scheduling of LCS, as well as LCS knowledge and acceptability of LungCARE. Two months after index visit, we reviewed patients' electronic health records (EHRs) for evidence of a shared decision-making conversation and referral to and receipt of LCS. KEY
resultsA total of 66 participants completed baseline and follow-up visits (34: LungCARE; 32: usual care). Mean age was 65.9 (± 6.0). Based on EHR review, compared to usual care, LungCARE participants were more likely to have discussed LCS with their physicians (56% vs 25%; p = 0.04) and to be referred to LCS (44% vs 13%; p < 0.02). Intervention participants were also more likely to complete LCS (32% vs 13%; p < 0.01) and had higher knowledge scores (mean score 6.5 (± 1.7) vs 5.5 (± 1.4; p < 0.01).
conclusionsLungCARE increased discussion, referral, and completion of LCS and improved LCS knowledge. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT03862001.
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.