SynthesisCancer causes & control : CCC2025
Lung cancer screening completion among patients using decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A Multilevel Approach to Improve Participation in Low-Dose CT for Lung Cancer Screening (Empower LCS): A Single-Arm Pilot Feasibility Clinical Trial.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2026Trial
- Development, Co-Design and Pilot Testing of Resources to Support Informed Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening in Australia: A Study Engaging Diverse Communities and Expert Healthcare Professionals.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Patients' and Providers' Perspective of a Multi-level Approach to Improve Participation in Low-dose CT for Lung Cancer Screening (Empower LCS): A Mixed-Methods Analysis.Academic radiology · 2026Article
- Patient and Healthcare Provider Barriers in the LDCT Lung Cancer Screening Continuum.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeUtilization of lung cancer screening (LCS) among eligible patients remains low at 16% in 2022. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we assessed the (a) LCS completion rate, and (b) intention to complete LCS, among patients who receive patient decision aids (PDAs).
methodsPubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for articles published in English between 1 January 2011, and 28 February 2023. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that reported PDA interventions targeting either LCS completion rate or intention to complete LCS. Quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines.
resultsThirteen studies with 2,277 total participants (51.5% male) were included. The pooled LCS completion rate across all follow-up periods (range, 1-6 months) was 40% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15-65%) with an I
conclusionsLCS completion and intention to complete LCS among patients who use PDAs is high. Our findings support the need to implement PDAs in clinical practice which could further facilitate shared decision-making and improve LCS uptake among eligible patients.
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.