ArticleBritish journal of cancer2014
Translation of research results to simple estimates of the likely effect of a lung cancer screening programme in the United Kingdom.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015Pooled it
- Lung cancer incidence and mortality in National Lung Screening Trial participants who underwent low-dose CT prevalence screening: a retrospective cohort analysis of a randomised, multicentre, diagnostic screening trial.The Lancet. Oncology · 2016Trial
- A Comparative Modeling Analysis of Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening Strategies.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Accounting for the Effect of Indeterminate Findings.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2019Article
- Implementation planning for lung cancer screening in China.Precision clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Scenarios in a Population-Based Setting: A Microsimulation Modeling Analysis in Ontario, Canada.PLoS medicine · 2017Article
- Annual or biennial lung cancer CT screening?Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Article
- Time-to-Progression of NSCLC from Early to Advanced Stages: An Analysis of data from SEER Registry and a Single Institute.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Next steps and barriers to implementing lung cancer screening with low-dose CT.The British journal of radiology · 2014Review
- Implementation of lung cancer screening: promises and hurdles.Translational lung cancer research · 2014Review
- Perspective: The screening imperative.Nature · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is considerable interest in the possibility of provision of lung cancer screening services in many developed countries. There is, however, no consensus on the target population or optimal screening regimen.
methodsIn this paper, we demonstrate the use of published results on lung cancer screening and natural history parameters to estimate the likely effects of annual and biennial screening programmes in different risk populations, in terms of deaths prevented and of human costs, including screening episodes, further investigation rates and overdiagnosis.
resultsAnnual screening with the UK Lung Screening Study eligibility criteria was estimated to result in 956 lung cancer deaths prevented and 457 overdiagnosed cancers from 330,000 screening episodes. Biennial screening would result in 802 lung cancer deaths prevented and 383 overdiagnosed cancers for 180,000 screening episodes. INTERPRETATION/
conclusionThe predictions suggest that the intervention effect could justify the human costs. The evidence base for low-dose CT screening for lung cancer pertains almost entirely to annual screening. The benefit of biennial screening is subject to additional uncertainty but the issue merits further empirical research.
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.