ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2016
Advancing and sharing the knowledge base of CT screening for lung cancer.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CT screening for lung cancer is gaining in acceptance and is now moving from the research domain into standard clinical practice. Coincident with this, there is also increasing awareness of the usefulness of collecting large datasets obtained in the clinical domain and how this can be used to advance practice. Toward this end, in the United States, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are requiring data from screening to be entered into certified registries. While this is still in its early stage and only limited datasets are required, this would be particularly relevant if images as well as clinical information were collected as it will allow for additional evaluation of all imaging findings including ancillary ones and understanding how they integrate into the screening process. All of this needs to be considered in the context of how this information can be shared with a person interested in being screened. In particular, the potential benefit of screening needs to be presented in terms of what is meaningful to the individual including their chances of having lung cancer and also their chance of being cured. This is very different then presenting it in terms of mortality reduction which was never meant to be used for that purpose. Also, how findings made on the CT scans, in addition to those related to lung cancer will be meaningful to them.
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.