SynthesisBMJ open2026
Effects of nurse-led shared decision-making on low-dose CT uptake and screening outcomes in high-risk populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effects of nurse-led shared decision-making (SDM) on lung cancer screening outcomes, including low-dose CT (LDCT) uptake, benign findings, early cancer detection and willingness to participate among high-risk populations.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Medline via OvidSP, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE via OvidSP, Web of Science, Scopus, grey literature databases and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to March 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies evaluating nurse-led SDM interventions in high-risk lung cancer populations, reporting outcomes including LDCT uptake rates, screening results (Lung-RADS (Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System) classifications), early-stage cancer detection or willingness to participate. Randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies and observational studies were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (for non-randomised studies) and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (for randomised controlled trials). Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Meta-regression explored sources of heterogeneity.
results13 studies (n=13 608 participants) were included, comprising 10 single-arm studies and three comparative studies. In single-arm studies without control groups, nurse-led SDM programmes achieved a pooled LDCT uptake rate of 98% (95% CI 28% to 100%; I²=99%), and willingness to participate was 68% (95% CI 24% to 93%; I²=98%). In comparative studies, nurse-led SDM showed no significant difference in LDCT uptake compared with usual care (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02; I²=0%), suggesting non-inferiority rather than superiority. Among individuals who completed screening, 81% (95% CI 77% to 85%) had benign or low-risk findings (Lung-RADS
conclusionsComparative evidence suggests that nurse-led SDM achieves equivalent LDCT uptake to standard care approaches, indicating feasibility as an alternative service delivery model. However, the predominance of single-arm studies, high heterogeneity and moderate-to-serious risk of bias limit causal inference. High uptake rates in single-arm studies likely reflect selection bias rather than intervention effectiveness. Current evidence supports the feasibility but not the superiority of nurse-led SDM. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to establish comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness before recommending widespread integration of nurse-led SDM into lung cancer screening programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD420251033595. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=1033595.
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.