SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001
Screening for lung cancer.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening for lung cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Detection of Lung Cancer Biomarkers CACS omega · 2025Article
- Toxicity evaluation of synthetic glucocorticoids against breast cancer cell lines MDA-MB-231, MCF-7 and human embryonic kidney HEK293.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023Article
- Image-guided drug delivery in lung cancer.Drug delivery and translational research · 2012Article
- Design and Development of a New Multi-Projection X-Ray System for Chest Imaging.IEEE transactions on nuclear science · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of screening for lung cancer with chest radiography, sputum cytology or spiral CT has not been established.
objectivesTo determine whether screening for lung cancer using regular sputum examinations or chest radiography or CT chest reduces lung cancer mortality. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases, bibliographies, hand searching of a journal and discussion with experts were used to identify published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled trials of screening for lung cancer using sputum examinations, chest radiography or CT chest. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Intention to screen analysis was performed. Where there was significant statistical heterogeneity relative risks were reported using the random effect model, but for other outcomes the fixed effect model was used. MAIN
resultsSeven trials were included (6 randomised controlled studies and 1 non-randomised controlled trial) with a total of 245,610 subjects. There were no studies with an unscreened control group. Frequent screening with chest x-rays was associated with an 11% relative increase in mortality from lung cancer compared with less frequent screening (RR 1.11, CI: 1.00-1.23). A non statistically significant trend was observed to reduced mortality from lung cancer when screening with chest x-ray and sputum cytology was compared with chest x-ray alone (RR 0.88, CI:0.74-1.03). Several of the included studies had potential methodological weaknesses. There were no controlled studies of spiral CT. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThe current evidence does not support screening for lung cancer with chest radiography or sputum cytology. Frequent chest x-ray screening might be harmful. Further, methodologically rigorous trials are required.
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.