ArticleChest2026
The Counseling and Shared Decision-Making Visit for Lung Cancer Screening: A Thematic Analysis of Public Comments to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services During the 2021-2022 National Coverage Analysis Process.
Article in Chest, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUptake of lung cancer screening (LCS) in the United States has been limited, and some groups have argued that the unprecedented Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage mandate for shared decision-making (SDM) contributed to the low screening rates. Late in 2021, the CMS initiated an update of its LCS coverage determination, which included 2 public comment periods. RESEARCH QUESTION: What comments were offered by the public about SDM in response to the proposed CMS update and how did CMS address commenters' concerns? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsPublic comments on SDM from the 2 periods were downloaded into a searchable database and commenter affiliations were categorized. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the verbatim comments.
resultsA total of 170 comments were submitted during the initial comment period and 49 during the second, with the largest number coming from individuals affiliated with radiology and/or LCS programs. Ninety-one comments addressed SDM. Recommendations about the SDM visit included complete removal, endorsing its importance without making it mandatory, and retaining the requirement with changes to reduce its administrative burden. Objections to the required SDM visit included the following: it is a barrier to screening initiation, it is a burden for clinicians, it is not required of other cancer screening tests, and the process is too complex. Relevant evidence supporting the objections was lacking. Comments in support of SDM recognized its importance in the context of LCS while proposing changes that allow nonclinical professionals to conduct the SDM visit and allowing for telehealth visits.
interpretationCommenters raised concerns that the CMS requirement for SDM led to many LCS implementation challenges. In response, the coverage decision was modified to decrease the administrative burden on screening programs while retaining the patient counseling and SDM requirement.
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.