Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37783984›Full record

Observational studyJournal of general internal medicine2024

Uptake of Lung Cancer Screening CT After a Provider Order for Screening in the PROSPR-Lung Consortium.

Christine Neslund-Dudas, Amy Tang, Elizabeth Alleman, Katie R Zarins, Pin Li, Michael J Simoff, Jennifer Elston Lafata, Katharine A Rendle, Andrea N Burnett Hartman, Stacey A Honda and 5 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Health Beliefs and Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening in a Diverse Safety-Net Population.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

15 authors.

Christine Neslund-DudasHenry Ford Health System and Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA. cdudas1@hfhs.org.ORCID 0000-0002-2506-1964
Amy TangHenry Ford Health System and Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Elizabeth AllemanHenry Ford Health System and Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Katie R ZarinsHenry Ford Health System and Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Pin LiHenry Ford Health System and Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Michael J SimoffHenry Ford Health System and Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Jennifer Elston LafataHenry Ford Health System and Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI, USA.
Katharine A RendlePerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Andrea N Burnett HartmanInstitute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.
Stacey A HondaCenter for Integrated Healthcare Research, Kaiser Permanente Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Caryn OshiroCenter for Integrated Healthcare Research, Kaiser Permanente Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Oluwatosin OlaiyaMarshfield Clinic Research Institute, Marshfield, WI, USA.
Robert T GreenleeMarshfield Clinic Research Institute, Marshfield, WI, USA.
Anil VachaniPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Debra P RitzwollerInstitute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.

Funding

Center for Research to Optimize Precision Lung Cancer Screening in Diverse PopulationsUM1CA221939 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI RITZWOLLER, DEBRA P, VACHANI, ANIL · 2018 to 2023
$15.3M
NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA221939NCI NIH HHS UM1CA221939
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) has been slow with less than 20% of eligible people who currently or formerly smoked reported to have undergone a screening CT.

objectiveTo determine individual-, health system-, and neighborhood-level factors associated with LCS uptake after a provider order for screening. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We conducted an observational cohort study of screening-eligible patients within the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR)-Lung Consortium who received a radiology referral/order for a baseline low-dose screening CT (LDCT) from a healthcare provider between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome is screening uptake, defined as LCS-LDCT completion within 90 days of the screening order date. KEY

resultsDuring the study period, 18,294 patients received their first order for LCS-LDCT. Orders more than doubled from the beginning to the end of the study period. Overall, 60% of patients completed screening after receiving their first LCS-LDCT order. Across health systems, uptake varied from 41 to 87%. In both univariate and multivariable analyses, older age, male sex, former smoking status, COPD, and receiving care in a centralized LCS program were positively associated with completing LCS-LDCT. Unknown insurance status, other or unknown race, and lower neighborhood socioeconomic status, as measured by the Yost Index, were negatively associated with screening uptake.

conclusionsOverall, 40% of patients referred for LCS did not complete a LDCT within 90 days, highlighting a substantial gap in the lung screening care pathway, particularly in decentralized screening programs.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerHumansLungMaleMass ScreeningTomography, X-Ray ComputedAsiancentralizeddecentralizeddisparitiesHispanicLDCTmultilevelnon-hispanic black

Identifiers

PMID37783984
PMCPMC10853157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.