ReviewCurrent oncology reports2007
Lung cancer screening.
Review in Current oncology reports, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung cancer screening with computer aided detection chest radiography: design and results of a randomized, controlled trial.PloS one · 2013Trial
- [Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2017Review
- [Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2017Review
- CAXII Is a sero-diagnostic marker for lung cancer.PloS one · 2012Article
- Data analysis: evaluation of nanoscale contrast agent enhanced CT scan to differentiate between benign and malignant lung cancer in mouse model.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2012Article
- Lung cancer screening: an update, discussion, and look ahead.Current oncology reports · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The result of a lung cancer screening program should be fewer lung cancer-specific deaths in the screened population. Studies evaluating chest imaging as a screening tool for lung cancer have not shown a reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality to date. The ability of institutions using chest imaging to meet the criteria for successful screening programs has also been debated. Contentious issues include the presence of an overdiagnosis bias, the ability to find preclinical disease at a curable point in time, the amount of pseudodisease identified, and the cost-effectiveness of screening programs. Current guidelines remain vague as randomized trials are being completed and technologic advances are occurring. The ultimate face of a successful lung cancer screening program is yet to be defined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17588350What 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.