Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38273370›Full record

Trial reportHealth and quality of life outcomes2024

Validation of the psychosocial consequences of screening in lung cancer questionnaire in the international lung screen trial Australian cohort.

Asha Bonney, John Brodersen, Volkert Siersma, Katharine See, Henry M Marshall, Daniel Steinfort, Louis Irving, Linda Lin, Jiashi Li, Siyuan Pang and 7 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02871856 (International Lung Screen Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
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.

NCT02871856 naunknown statusnot on this map

International Lung Screen Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of QueenslandRan2017 to 2025Enrolled2,000ConditionsNon-small Cell Lung Cancer, Lung Neoplasms, Respiratory Tract Neoplasms, Thoracic NeoplasmsArmsLow dose CT
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

17 authors at 11 institutions in 4 countries.

Asha BonneyDepartment of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Asha.Bonney@mh.org.au.
John BrodersenDepartment of Public Health, Centre for General Practice, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Volkert SiersmaDepartment of Public Health, Centre for General Practice, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Katharine SeeRespiratory Department, Northern Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Henry M MarshallDepartment of Thoracic Medicine, University of Queensland Thoracic Research Centre, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, QLD, Australia.
Daniel SteinfortDepartment of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Louis IrvingDepartment of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Linda LinDepartment of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jiashi LiDepartment of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Siyuan PangDepartment of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Paul FogartyRespiratory Department, Epworth Eastern Hospital, Box Hill, VIC, Australia.
Fraser BrimsDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Annette McWilliamsDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, WA, Australia.
Emily StoneDepartment of Thoracic Medicine and Lung Transplantation, School of Clinical Medicine UNSW, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Stephen LamDepartment of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kwun M FongDepartment of Thoracic Medicine, University of Queensland Thoracic Research Centre, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, QLD, Australia.
Renee ManserDepartment of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Queensland · AUEpworth Hospital · AUNorthern Health · AURegion Zealand · DKSir Charles Gairdner Hospital · AUSt Vincent's Hospital Sydney · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUThe University of Western Australia · AUUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council Postgraduate Scholarship APP2005195National Health and Medical Research Council project grant 1099154Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance and The Picchi Brothers Foundatio Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluation of psychosocial consequences of lung cancer screening with LDCT in high-risk populations has generally been performed using generic psychometric instruments. Such generic instruments have low coverage and low power to detect screening impacts. This study aims to validate an established lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire, Consequences Of Screening Lung Cancer (COS-LC), in Australian-English and describe early results from the baseline LDCT round of the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST).

methodsThe Danish-version COS-LC was translated to Australian-English using the double panel method and field tested in Australian-ILST participants to examine content validity. A random sample of 200 participants were used to assess construct validity using Rasch item response theory models. Reliability was assessed using classical test theory. The COS-LC was administered to ILST participants at prespecified timepoints including at enrolment, dependent of screening results.

resultsMinor linguistic alterations were made after initial translation of COS-LC to English. The COS-LC demonstrated good content validity and adequate construct validity using psychometric analysis. The four core scales fit the Rasch model, with only minor issues in five non-core scales which resolved with modification. 1129 Australian-ILST participants were included in the analysis, with minimal psychosocial impact observed shortly after baseline LDCT results.

conclusionCOS-LC is the first lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire to be validated in Australia and has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. Early results did not demonstrate significant psychosocial impacts of screening. Longer-term follow-up is awaited and will be particularly pertinent given the announcement of an Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program.

trial registrationNCT02871856.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsAustraliaEarly Detection of CancerHumansLungQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesComputed tomographyHarmsLung cancerPsychosocial impactsScreening

Identifiers

PMID38273370
PMCPMC10809555
OpenAlexW4391228551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.