ReviewCancer2025
The quality of patient decision aids for lung cancer screening: Results from an environmental scan.
Review in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Online Intervention on Lung Cancer Screening Among High-Risk Individuals: Pilot Intervention Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- "I Was Expecting the Worst": Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Lung Cancer Screening in Black and Hispanic Communities.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- The quality of patient decision aids for lung cancer screening: Results from an environmental scan.Cancer · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Shared decision making is recommended for lung cancer screening (LCS) by professional organizations and payers. Patient decision aids can be used to support shared decision making, but they need to meet quality standards to minimize the potential for biased and poorly informed patient decisions. After the updated LCS recommendation from the US Preventive Services Task Force in 2021, the authors conducted an environmental scan of public-facing patient educational materials and evaluated them against criteria from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards for high-quality patient decision aids. The Google site search function was used to search websites from National Cancer Institute-funded cancer centers, professional societies, patient advocacy groups, cancer coalitions, and private organizations for educational materials on LCS. A general web search using Google, Google Scholar, and select databases was also conducted. Considerations unique to the LCS context (e.g., the importance of annual screening and smoking cessation) were documented. The search identified 96 educational materials that included information about both benefits and harms of LCS. Of these, 39 did not meet qualifying criteria for decision aids, with failure to explicitly identify LCS as a decision being the primary reason for exclusion. Only 10 of the remaining decision aids met quality criteria from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. These aids emphasized that LCS should be performed annually, most avoided stigmatizing language, and several included personalization features using prediction models. Clinicians and patients can be confident in using these high-quality aids to complement the process of shared decision making for LCS. Validated aids in languages other than English and Spanish are needed.
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.