ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2025
Reliability of Electronic Medical Record to Assess Patient's Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening: Analysis of Two Pilot Trials.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 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.
- Barbershop-based lung health navigation for Black men: A feasibility study.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Among Patients Diagnosed With Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAccurate smoking history documentation in electronic medical records (EMRs) is essential for determining lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility. We investigated the completeness of EMR smoking data, its concordance with patients' self-reports, and its reliability for LCS eligibility after 2021 LCS United States Preventive Services Task Force guideline change.
methodsBetween October 2023 and November 2024, patients aged 50 to 80 years with a primary care visit in academic and community practices of a health system, who were current or former smokers or had an unknown smoking history based on EMR, and who were being screened for two clinical trials on interventions to improve LCS were enrolled. Participants completed an LCS eligibility verification survey, and EMR smoking data from the most recent visit before PCP encounter were extracted for comparison.
resultsIn total, 322 patients were included (mean age 62.4 ± 7.9; 58.1% male; 15.6% Asian, 1.2% Black, 61.4% White, and 21.8% other races; 45.7% Hispanic). Overall, 39.4% (127 of 322) had incomplete EMR smoking history to determine LCS eligibility. Among 167 smokers with both EMR and self-reported pack-year data, 85.6% (143 of 167) showed discordance in pack-year. Further, 26.2% (51 of 195) of patients with determined EMR eligibility (15.8% of 322 participants) had discordant eligibility based on self-report. Hispanic (versus non-Hispanic) patients were more likely to have incomplete EMR data to assess LCS eligibility (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.80) and discordant EMR eligibility with self-report (odds ratio, 2.34; 95% confidence interval 1.10-5.08).
conclusionsThis study highlights significant gaps in smoking history documentation within EMRs, with high rates of incomplete and discordant data, particularly among Hispanic populations.
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.