Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22872503›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2012

Generalizability of results from the National Lung Screening Trial.

Marlies E Heuvers, Juan Wisnivesky, Bruno H Stricker, Joachim G Aerts

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Smoking, inflammation and small cell lung cancer: recent developments.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2015
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. The Rotterdam Study: 2014 objectives and design update.European journal of epidemiology · 2013
    Article
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

4 authors.

Marlies E HeuversDepartment of Respiratory Diseases and Tuberculosis, Erasmus Medical University Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, m.heuvers@erasmusmc.nl
Juan Wisnivesky
Bruno H Stricker
Joachim G Aerts

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer is the major cause of cancer-related death worldwide, with a 5-year survival of only 16%. Most lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an advanced incurable stage. As earlier stages have a better prognosis, the key to reducing mortality could be early diagnosis of the disease. At present, low-dose computed tomographic (CT) screening has shown promising data. Lung cancer death rates were reduced by 20% when CT screening is compared to chest radiography in a high-risk group. There are many advantages of CT screening in lung cancer, however there are also some important issues that should be taken into account. Therefore, the applicability of the results to clinical practice is not clear yet. In this Commentary we discuss different aspects that play important roles in the balance between harms and benefits of screening, including overdiagnosis, availability of treatment options worldwide, ethical considerations, costs, and prolonged life expectancy. We conclude that clinicians should be cautious in generalizing findings to the total population of smokers and take into account that the use of lung cancer screening in clinical practice may have limitations.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerTomography, X-Ray ComputedAgedBiasFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSmoking

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.