ArticleAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2017
Monitoring Lung Cancer Screening Use and Outcomes at Four Cancer Research Network Sites.
Article in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lung Cancer Screening Participation Among Indigenous Peoples Worldwide: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Opportunities.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025Pooled it
- Guideline
- Management of suspicious nodules in lung cancer screening - a narrative review of monitoring strategies based on nodule features and further needs.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Nodule Characteristics, Clinical Risk Factors, and Radiologist Experience as Predictors of Positive Baseline LDCT Screening Results.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- A Novel Automated Algorithm to Identify Lung Cancer Screening from Free Text of Radiology Orders.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Real-World Smoking History Documentation and Identification of Lung Cancer Screening Candidates.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Death by a thousand delays.JTCVS open · 2024Article
- Factors associated with lung cancer risk factor documentation.The American journal of managed care · 2023Observational
- Article
- Using the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) to study adaptations in lung cancer screening delivery in the Veterans Health Administration: a cohort study.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Article
- Community-based Lung Cancer Screening Results in Relation to Patient and Radiologist Characteristics: The PROSPR Consortium.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2022Article
- Improving smoking history documentation in the electronic health record for lung cancer risk assessment and screening in primary care: A case study.Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Population-Level Changes Associated With the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations in Community-Based Health Care Systems.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- State Variation in Low-Dose Computed Tomography Scanning for Lung Cancer Screening in the United States.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
- Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk-stratification opportunities and challenges.International journal of cancer · 2021Review
- Patterns and Factors Associated With Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening in Diverse Practice Settings.JAMA network open · 2021Observational
- Patient motivations for non-adherence to lung cancer screening in a military population.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleLung cancer screening registries can monitor screening outcomes and improve quality of care.
objectivesTo describe nascent lung cancer screening programs and share efficient data collection approaches for mandatory registry reporting in four integrated health care systems of the National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Research Network.
methodsWe documented the distinctive characteristics of lung cancer screening programs, and we provide examples of strategies to facilitate data collection and describe early challenges and possible solutions. In addition, we report preliminary data on use and outcomes of screening with low-dose computed tomography at each of the participating sites.
resultsPrograms varied in approaches to confirming patient eligibility, ordering screening low-dose computed tomographic scans, and coordinating follow-up care. Most data elements were collected from structured fields in electronic health records, but sites also made use of standardized order templates, local procedure codes, identifiable hashtags in radiology reports, and natural language processing algorithms. Common challenges included incomplete documentation of tobacco smoking history, difficulty distinguishing between scans performed for screening versus diagnosis or surveillance, and variable adherence with use of standardized templates. Adherence with eligibility criteria as well as the accuracy and completeness of data collection appeared to depend at least partly on availability of personnel and other resources to support the successful implementation of screening.
conclusionsTo maximize the effectiveness of lung cancer screening, minimize the burden of data collection, and facilitate research and quality improvement, clinical workflow and information technology should be purposefully designed to ensure that patients meet eligibility criteria and receive appropriate follow-up testing.
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.