ReviewDer Radiologe2016
[Lung cancer screening with thoracic X‑ray and CT : Current situation].
Review in Der Radiologe, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Incidental findings in chest X‑rays].Der Radiologe · 2017Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
clinical/methodical issueAttempts at the early detection of lung cancer using imaging methods began as far back as the 1950s. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL
methodsSeveral studies attempted to demonstrate a reduction of lung cancer mortality by chest radiography screening but all were unsuccessful. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Even the first small screening studies using computed tomography (CT) could not demonstrate a reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality until in 2011 the results of the largest randomized controlled low-dose CT screening study in the USA (NLST) were published. The NLST results could show a significant 20 % reduction of lung cancer mortality in elderly and heavy smokers using CT. PERFORMANCE: Confirmation of the NLST results are urgently needed so that the data of the largest European study (NELSON) are eagerly awaited. ACHIEVEMENTS: Pooled with the data from several smaller European studies these results will provide important information and evidence for the establishment of future CT screening programs in Europe. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Randomized controlled trials are the basis of evidence-based medicine; therefore, the positive results of the methodologically very good NLST study cannot be ignored, even if it is the only such study completed so far with highly convincing conclusions. The NLST results clearly demonstrate that positive effects for the health of the population can only be expected if the processes are clearly defined and the quality is assured.
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.