ArticlePloS one2025
Predictors for psychosocial consequences of screening for liver diseases: A data-driven approach.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Predictive Biomarkers for Asymptomatic Adults: Opportunities, Risks, and Guidance for General Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Data-driven life-stage classification for companion dogs and cats using age-specific diagnosis patterns in South Korea.Journal of veterinary science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical screening is employed to detect early signs of diseases in asymptomatic populations, potentially improving patient outcomes through early intervention. However, the psychosocial impact of screenings remains a field of discussion. Inconsistent findings from studies, mainly originally from cancer research, are not easily transferable to the context of liver screening. This study aimed to identify predictors of psychosocial consequences in asymptomatic adults screened for early-stage liver cirrhosis, thereby contributing to the current knowledge on screening impact.
methodsWe analyzed data from 487 participants who underwent a systematic liver disease screening in Germany from January 2018 to February 2021. The screening involved blood tests, advanced diagnostics, and potentially, liver biopsies. We used bootstrapped LASSO regression with 10-fold validation to evaluate the influence of various predictors on psychosocial outcomes measured by the Psychological Consequences of Screening Questionnaire (PCQ).
resultsThe results show that severity of comorbidities (beta = 0.44-2.72), subjective social status (beta = -0.30--0.86), and social support (beta = -0.33--0.98) were consistent predictors across all psychosocial outcome measures by not covering zero in the confidence intervals. Older age (beta = -0.03--0.08), the existence of a steady partnership (beta = -1.08--0.48) and higher health literacy regarding the application of medical information (beta = 0.33-0.48) were associated with less psychosocial dysfunction, indicating their protective roles to prevent psychosocial burden of screening.
conclusionThe study underscores the importance of considering individual patient characteristics in predicting psychosocial consequences of medical screening. Medical practitioners should consider personalized communication strategies taking into account the individual context of patients. The protective role of social support and stable personal relationships suggests that integrating psychosocial support services within screening programs could mitigate negative outcomes. Furthermore, increasing patient health literacy might help to demystify the screening process and can reduce psychosocial burden even if patients come from a segment of lower subjective social status.
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.