Cons: long-term CT-scan follow-up is not the standard of care in patients curatively treated for an early stage non-small cell lung cancer.

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. Automatic Abstraction of Computed Tomography Imaging Indication Using Natural Language Processing for Evaluation of Surveillance Patterns in Long-Term Lung Cancer Survivors.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025
   Article
2. The Clinical Significance of Circulating Tumor DNA for Minimal Residual Disease Identification in Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
   Review
3. Using max standardized uptake value from positron emission tomography to assess tumor responses after lung stereotactic body radiotherapy for different prescriptions.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.