Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42548364›Full record

ArticleCHEST pulmonary2026

Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Adrienne Landsteiner, Nicholas Zerzan, Kristen E Ullman, Maylen Anthony, Amy M Claussen, Robertson Bayer, Tam Do, Allison M Gustavson, Anne C Melzer, Timothy J Wilt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CHEST pulmonary, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Adrienne LandsteinerCenter for Care Delivery & Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN.
Nicholas ZerzanCenter for Care Delivery & Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN.
Kristen E UllmanCenter for Care Delivery & Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN.
Maylen AnthonyCenter for Care Delivery & Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN.
Amy M ClaussenDivision of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Robertson BayerSection of General Medicine, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN.
Tam DoSection of General Medicine, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN.
Allison M GustavsonCenter for Care Delivery & Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN.
Anne C MelzerCenter for Care Delivery & Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN.
Timothy J WiltCenter for Care Delivery & Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) with annual low-dose CT scanning is recommended for eligible individuals. The Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services stipulates that counseling and shared decision-making (SDM) are a prerequisite for LCS reimbursement; however, SDM effects and optimal strategies are poorly understood. Research Question: What are the effects of LCS SDM tools and strategies? Study Design and Methods: This was a systematic review of US-based randomized controlled trials or observational studies of LCS SDM with a comparator. We searched Embase and MEDLINE via Ovid and CINAHL via EbscoHost for dates January 2010 through December 2023. We used dual abstraction and risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment with Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool for randomized controlled trials and Joanna Briggs Institute RoB for observational studies. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Thirty-one studies were eligible. Studies varied in design, intervention, comparator, and methodology precluding quantitative analysis. Few reports provided adequate information to assess if they met Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services SDM criteria. We summarized findings by whether the tool was a health care provider- or patient-facing tool or material. Few studies addressed uptake, adherence, and harms. SDM, including by care coordinators or patient navigators, may increase LCS participation with acceptable information quality (low CoE) and does not increase decisional conflict/regret (high CoE). The choice of SDM tool may not affect LCS uptake (low CoE). Little evidence exists on whether effects vary by patient or clinic characteristics. Interpretation: LCS SDM evidence is limited due to study variability and short follow-up. SDM may increase LCS participation, has acceptable information quality, and does not increase decisional conflict/regret. Most studies reported on knowledge; few addressed clinical and patient-centered outcomes. Specific SDM tool choice may not impact LCS. A decision aid may be superior to an education tool. Implementation should consider feasibility and that delivery included print, web, in-person, and video, with most patient-facing. Clinical Trial Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; No.: CRD42024511257; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Indexed as

cancer screeningevidence synthesislung cancer screeningshared decision-makingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42548364
PMCPMC13418648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.