ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2016
2016 reflections on the favorable cost-benefit of lung cancer screening.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung cancer screening in Brazil: recommendations from the Brazilian Society of Thoracic Surgery, Brazilian Thoracic Association, and Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2024Review
- Implementation of lung cancer screening in Europe: challenges and potential solutions: summary of a multidisciplinary roundtable discussion.ESMO open · 2019Review
- Lung Cancer Screening: A Cost-Effective Public Health Imperative.American journal of public health · 2018Article
- Terminate lung cancer (TLC) study-A mixed-methods population approach to increase lung cancer screening awareness and low-dose computed tomography in Eastern Kentucky.Cancer epidemiology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article gives a basic background on the confusing and often politicized topic of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare, using lung cancer screening as a case study. The authors are actuaries who work with the insurance industry, where real-world data is used to produce audited financial figures; other disciplines which work with cost-benefit analysis include those academic disciplines where randomized controlled trials may be perceived as the gold standard of evidence. In recent years, the finance and academic sectors of healthcare have begun to converge, as academic disciplines have come to increasingly appreciate real-world data, and insurers increasingly appreciate classical evidence-based medicine. Nevertheless, the variation of results in cost-benefit analyses for particular treatments can be bewildering to medical experts unfamiliar with real-world healthcare financing.
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.