Correction: Evaluation of the Lung Cancer Risks at Which to Screen Ever- and Never-Smokers: Screening Rules Applied to the PLCO and NLST Cohorts.

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.

1. Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome and lung cancer: does the risk meet the threshold for lung cancer screening?Familial cancer · 2026
   Review
2. From aspiration to reality: a cross-country analysis of the implementation of lung cancer screening in Europe.Frontiers in public health · 2026
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Evaluation of the lung cancer risks at which to screen ever- and never-smokers: screening rules applied to the PLCO and NLST cohorts.2014

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract