Trial reportEuropean radiology2015
The impact of radiologists' expertise on screen results decisions in a CT lung cancer screening trial.
Trial report in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the performance of trained radiographers against experienced radiologists in the UK lung cancer screening (UKLS) trial.The British journal of radiology · 2016Trial
- Biopsy first: Lessons learned from Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 140503.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of radiological expertise on screen result decisions in a CT lung cancer screening trial.
methodsIn the NELSON lung cancer screening trial, the baseline CT result was based on the largest lung nodule's volume. The protocol allowed radiologists to manually adjust screen results in cases of high suspicion of benign or malignant nodule nature. Participants whose baseline CT result was based on a solid or part-solid nodule were included in this study. Adjustments by radiologists at baseline were evaluated. Histology was the reference for diagnosis or to confirm benignity and stability on subsequent CT examinations.
resultsA total of 3,318 participants (2,796 male, median age 58.0 years) were included. In 195 participants (5.9 %) the initial baseline screen result was adjusted by the radiologist. Adjustment was downwards from positive or indeterminate to negative in two and 119 participants, respectively, and from positive to indeterminate in 65 participants. None of these nodules turned out to be malignant. In 9/195 participants (4.6 %) the screen result was adjusted upwards from negative to indeterminate or indeterminate to positive; two nodules were malignant.
conclusionIn one in 20 cases of baseline lung cancer screening, nodules were reclassified by the radiologist, leading to a reduction of false-positive screen results.
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.