ArticleAnnals of thoracic surgery short reports2025
Qualitative Assessment of a Decision Tool for Stage I Lung Cancer Treatment.
Article in Annals of thoracic surgery short reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Some patients are candidates for either surgical resection or stereotactic body radiotherapy for treatment of stage I lung cancer. We refined a previously developed decision tool about this treatment choice and evaluated interest in a personalized risk calculator. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews from October 2023 to May 2024 with patients who had been treated for stage I lung cancer at a Midwestern comprehensive cancer center and with clinicians who treat such patients. Results: Participants responded positively to the tool and indicated that it could support decisions if provided before or during conversations following diagnosis. There was no consensus on which clinician should deliver the tool. Suggested tool adaptations focused on clarifying eligibility for options and accurately describing the range of patients' recovery experiences. Participants were open to the idea of a personalized risk calculator but expressed concerns about accuracy and interpretation of the results. Conclusions: Decision tools can help clinicians and patients collaborate on care decisions. Future work will explore opportunities to incorporate personalized risk information and evaluate this decision tool with a diverse group of patients deciding on treatment for stage I lung cancer.
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.