Screening for lung cancer and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: killing two birds with one stone.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Is generalization of exhaled CO assessment in primary care helpful for early diagnosis of COPD?BMC pulmonary medicine · 2015
   Trial
2. Lung cancer screening: who pays? Who receives? The European perspectives.Translational lung cancer research · 2021
   Review
3. Neglected evidence in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and the importance of early diagnosis and treatment.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2014
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Interstitial lung abnormalities in a CT lung cancer screening population: prevalence and progression rate.2013

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as