ArticleCureus2024
The Effect of COVID-19 on Lung Cancer Screening.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospitals suspended non-essential medical procedures to reduce transmission and prioritize personal protective equipment (PPE) for COVID-19 patients. Hospitals that continued these procedures faced uncertainty about patient attendance. Multiple factors could explain a decline in patient attendance during the pandemic, including patients' reluctance to risk COVID-19 exposure in the hospital or their own illness requiring self-isolation. This study aimed to compare attendance rates of lung cancer screenings (LCS) before and during the pandemic. Unlike previous studies conducted on this research topic, the current study documents that the John B. Amos Cancer Center continued LCS throughout the pandemic. The alternative hypothesis was that there would be a decrease in the percentage of LCS performed during the pandemic period due to fear of nosocomial transmission. Materials and methods Data for 2,582 scheduled LCS were retrospectively analyzed on Microsoft Excel 2022 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington) from 2018 to 2021. For analysis purposes, 2018 and 2019 were considered pre-COVID years, while 2020 and 2021 were considered COVID years. The average percentage attended was calculated for each year and the standard deviation of that year's percentage. The percentage of patients seen each month was averaged during pre-COVID and COVID years. The p-value was calculated by comparing the average attendance percentage for each month in the pre-COVID and COVID years. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results From 2018 to 2021, over 300 more people were scheduled during the COVID years. Although the percentage seen remained consistent throughout the years, there was an increase in both patients scheduled and seen. The results revealed an insignificant difference in LCS attendance between pre-COVID and COVID years, confirming the importance of their continuation. Conclusion The alternative hypothesis was rejected due to no significant difference in attendance percentage between the pre-COVID and COVID years. Further direction of this study may include monitoring the trend of LCS attendance during post-pandemic years as the transmission rates continue to change.
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.