Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23794187›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Screening for lung cancer.

Renée Manser, Anne Lethaby, Louis B Irving, Christine Stone, Graham Byrnes, Michael J Abramson, Don Campbell

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
14.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 233 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Lung cancer occurrence after an episode of tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Lung cancer screening with low-dose spiral computed tomography: evidence from a pooled analysis of two Italian randomized trials.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2017
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Diagnostic approach for incidental pulmonary nodules.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2025
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Renée ManserDepartment of Haematology and Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, St Andrew's Place, East Melbourne 3002, Victoria, and Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. Renee.Manser@petermac.org.
Anne Lethaby
Louis B Irving
Christine Stone
Graham Byrnes
Michael J Abramson
Don Campbell
Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer · FRMonash Medical Centre · AUMonash University · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUServices Australia · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is an updated version of the original review published in The Cochrane Library in 1999 and updated in 2004 and 2010. Population-based screening for lung cancer has not been adopted in the majority of countries. However it is not clear whether sputum examinations, chest radiography or newer methods such as computed tomography (CT) are effective in reducing mortality from lung cancer.

objectivesTo determine whether screening for lung cancer, using regular sputum examinations, chest radiography or CT scanning of the chest, reduces lung cancer mortality. SEARCH

methodsWe searched electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to 2012), PREMEDLINE and EMBASE (to 2012) and bibliographies. We handsearched the journal Lung Cancer (to 2000) and contacted experts in the field to identify published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled trials of screening for lung cancer using sputum examinations, chest radiography or chest CT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed an intention-to-screen analysis. Where there was significant statistical heterogeneity, we reported risk ratios (RRs) using the random-effects model. For other outcomes we used the fixed-effect model. MAIN

resultsWe included nine trials in the review (eight randomised controlled studies and one controlled trial) with a total of 453,965 subjects. In one large study that included both smokers and non-smokers comparing annual chest x-ray screening with usual care there was no reduction in lung cancer mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07). In a meta-analysis of studies comparing different frequencies of chest x-ray screening, 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, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23); however several of the trials included in this meta-analysis had potential methodological weaknesses. We observed a non-statistically significant trend 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, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03). There was one large methodologically rigorous trial in high-risk smokers and ex-smokers (those aged 55 to 74 years with ≥ 30 pack-years of smoking and who quit ≤ 15 years prior to entry if ex-smokers) comparing annual low-dose CT screening with annual chest x-ray screening; in this study the relative risk of death from lung cancer was significantly reduced in the low-dose CT group (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe current evidence does not support screening for lung cancer with chest radiography or sputum cytology. Annual low-dose CT screening is associated with a reduction in lung cancer mortality in high-risk smokers but further data are required on the cost effectiveness of screening and the relative harms and benefits of screening across a range of different risk groups and settings.

Indexed as

AdultControlled Clinical Trials as TopicFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleRadiography, ThoracicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSmokingSputumTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID23794187
PMCPMC6464996
OpenAlexW3205413357

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.