Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26921304›Full record

ReviewThorax2016

Pulmonary nodules and CT screening: the past, present and future.

M Ruparel, S L Quaife, N Navani, J Wardle, S M Janes, D R Baldwin

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Thorax, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Classification of Pulmonary Nodules in 2-[Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Recognising Lung Cancer in Primary Care.Advances in therapy · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M RuparelLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
S L QuaifeHealth Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK.
N NavaniLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
J WardleHealth Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK.
S M JanesLungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
D R BaldwinRespiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK.
University College London · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17976Medical Research Council G0800465Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer screening has come a long way since the early studies with chest X-ray. Advancing technology and progress in the processing of images have enabled low dose CT to be tried and tested, and evidence suggests its use can result in a significant mortality benefit. There are several issues that need refining in order to successfully implement screening in the UK and elsewhere. Some countries have started patchy implementation of screening and there is increased recognition that the appropriate management of pulmonary nodules is crucial to optimise benefits of early detection, while reducing harm caused by inappropriate medical intervention. This review summarises and differentiates the many recent guidelines on pulmonary nodule management, discusses screening activity in other countries and exposes the present barriers to implementation in the UK.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerGuidelines as TopicHumansLung NeoplasmsMultiple Pulmonary NodulesPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and SpecificitySolitary Pulmonary NoduleTomography, X-Ray ComputedImaging/CT MRI etcLung Cancer

Identifiers

PMID26921304
PMCPMC4819623
OpenAlexW2281177633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.