Digital Interventions to Support Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) can reduce lung cancer mortality, but its adoption in the U.S. has been limited. Digital interventions have the potential to improve uptake of LCS. This systematic review aims to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness of digital interventions in promoting LCS. METHODS: A systematic search of three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Medline) was conducted to identify studies published between January 2014 and May 2023. Studies were reviewed and abstracted between February 2023 and July 2023. Outcomes related to knowledge, decision-making and screening were measured. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. RESULTS: Of 1,979 screened articles, 30 studies were included in this review. Digital interventions evaluated included decision aids (n=20), electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions (n=7), social media campaigns and mobile applications (n=3). Decision aids were the most commonly studied digital interventions, with most studies showing improved knowledge (13/13) and reduced decisional conflict (7/9) but most did not show a substantial change in screening use. Fewer studies tested clinician-facing or multi-level interventions. DISCUSSION: Digital interventions, particularly decision aids, have shown promise in improving knowledge and the quality of decision-making around LCS. However, few interventions have been shown to substantially alter screening behavior and few clinician-facing or multi-level interventions have been rigorously tested. Further research is needed to develop effective tools for engaging patients in LCS, to compare the efficacy of different interventions, and evaluate implementation strategies in diverse healthcare settings.

Strain pattern comparison of double- and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques with the native anterior cruciate ligament.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to dynamically assess the native strain patterns of the anteromedial bundle (AMB) and posterolateral bundle (PLB) of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and compare these findings with graft bundle strain patterns after double-bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction with tibial fixation under 40 N of tension at 75 degrees knee flexion (AMB) and under 20 N of tension at 20 degrees knee flexion (PLB) and after single-bundle (SB) reconstruction with tibial fixation under 40 N of tension at 20 degrees knee flexion. METHODS: The mean strain pattern of the AMB and PLB of the native ACL of 4 cadaveric knees was measured via differential variable reluctance transducers and 2-dimensional kinematic analysis during passive manual knee flexion-extension under a constant axial compression load. Measurements were repeated after DB and SB ACL reconstruction. Celeration line assessments with a split-middle technique were performed to quantify percent strain/knee flexion-extension angle change at reciprocating bundle function transition points. RESULTS: The DB ACL reconstruction technique displayed reciprocating AMB and PLB strain patterns that more closely replicated those of the native ACL. The SB ACL reconstruction technique tended to replicate AMB strain patterns, suggesting poor bundle function differentiation. CONCLUSIONS: The DB ACL reconstruction with differential AMB and PLB tensioning more closely replicated native ACL strain patterns than the SB ACL reconstruction. The SB ACL reconstruction that we used closely simulated native ACL AMB strain patterns; however, PLB function was not restored. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The DB ACL reconstruction more closely replicated the AMB and PLB strain patterns of the native ACL.