ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2026
Integrating interstitial lung abnormality detection into lung cancer screening: a mixed methods approach for care pathway development.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 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
rationaleInterstitial lung abnormalities (ILAs) are incidental parenchymal findings detected on CT scans. There is an estimated 4%-17% prevalence of ILAs in lung cancer screening (LCS) cohorts, associated with increased all-cause mortality. A substantial proportion of fibrotic ILAs progresses to interstitial lung disease (ILD), offering an important opportunity for early identification and management of ILD. However, current reporting and management strategies for ILAs are heterogeneous, underscoring the need for standardised approaches.
objectiveTo explore current practice patterns among primary care physicians (PCPs), respirologists and radiologists and to assess the need for a standardised care pathway for ILAs identified through LCS programmes.
methodsOnline surveys and one-on-one semistructured interviews were conducted with PCPs, respirologists and radiologists practising in Alberta, Canada. Interviews were conducted using the Theoretical Domains Framework and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Survey results are presented descriptively. Qualitative data were transcribed, coded and analysed according to grounded theory principles.
resultsA total of 20 PCPs and 39 respirologists completed surveys while 9 PCPs, 10 respirologists and 8 radiologists were interviewed. Sixty-one per cent of PCPs had not heard of the term ILA previously and only 13% were comfortable managing ILAs. Most respirologists (64%) did not follow a standardised approach to managing ILAs. Most PCPs and respirologists supported the development of a standardised care pathway for ILAs detected through LCS. Thematic analysis explored current knowledge and perspectives on management, clinical approach and recommendations for future directions. Barriers to a standardised pathway included heterogeneous reporting, knowledge gaps in the natural history of ILAs and healthcare resource constraints.
conclusionsThis mixed-methods study provides valuable insight into the practice patterns and perceptions of PCPs, respirologists and radiologists regarding ILAs. Given the anticipated increase in ILA detection, we have conducted a needs assessment that will be foundational to building standardised care pathways for ILAs.
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.