SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013
Screening for lung cancer.
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.
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
75 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 233 citations in OpenAlex.
- An umbrella review of systematic evidence on the Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- High SNHG expression may predict a poor lung cancer prognosis based on a meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Circulating microRNA biomarkers for lung cancer detection in Western populations.Cancer medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) versus other cancer screenings in early diagnosis of lung cancer: A meta-analysis.Medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Necessity of organized low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer: From epidemiologic comparisons between China and the Western nations.Oncotarget · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Can CT Screening Give Rise to a Beneficial Stage Shift in Lung Cancer Patients? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Sequential screening for lung cancer in a high-risk group: randomised controlled trial: LungSEARCH: a randomised controlled trial of Surveillance using sputum and imaging for the EARly detection of lung Cancer in a High-risk group.The European respiratory journal · 2019Trial
- Trial
- 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) · 2017Trial
- Lung Cancer Screening Using Low Dose CT Scanning in Germany. Extrapolation of results from the National Lung Screening Trial.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Trial
- Clinical applications of deep learning in distinguishing benign from malignant pulmonary nodules in computed tomography scans.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- Diagnostic approach for incidental pulmonary nodules.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2025Review
- Systematic Evaluation of How Indicators of Inequity and Disadvantage Are Measured and Reported in Population Health Evidence Syntheses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Quantum chimp-enanced SqueezeNet for precise diabetic retinopathy classification.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness assessment of liquid biopsy for early detection of lung cancer in Brazil.PloS one · 2025Article
15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.