SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004
Screening for lung cancer.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chemotherapy versus best supportive care for extensive small cell lung cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Screening for lung cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Guideline
- Diagnostic evaluation following a positive lung screening chest radiograph in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2013Trial
- Lung cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2010Trial
- Targeting lung cancer screening to individuals at greatest risk: the role of genetic factors.Journal of medical genetics · 2021Article
- [Lung Nodules Assessment--Analysis of Four Guidelines].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2017Review
- Lung cancer screening: history, current perspectives, and future directions.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2015Article
- Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a review of current status.Journal of thoracic disease · 2013Review
- Prognostic significance of serum miR-17-5p in lung cancer.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2013Article
- Overwhelming support among urban Irish COPD patients for lung cancer screening by low-dose CT scan.Lung · 2012Article
- Increased levels of circulating interleukin 6, interleukin 8, C-reactive protein, and risk of lung cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2011Article
- Volunteer effect and compromised randomization in the Mayo Project of screening for lung cancer.European journal of epidemiology · 2011Article
- The implementation of screening for prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2010Review
- Estimating the risks and benefits of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation in the United States.American journal of public health · 2010Article
- Lung cancer: current diagnosis and treatment.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2009Review
- A pause for thought on lung cancer screening.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2009Article
- Survival from lung cancer in England and Wales up to 2001.British journal of cancer · 2008Article
- Screening and chemoprevention in lung cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2008Review
- Cancer screening in renal transplant recipients: what is the evidence?Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile population based screening for lung cancer has not been adopted by most countries, it is not clear whether sputum examinations, chest radiography or newer methods such as computed tomography are effective in reducing mortality from lung cancer.
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 (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE and EMBASE; 1966 to July 2000) ), 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 effects 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.