Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29374513›Full record

GuidelineChest2018

Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

Peter J Mazzone, Gerard A Silvestri, Sheena Patel, Jeffrey P Kanne, Linda S Kinsinger, Renda Soylemez Wiener, Guy Soo Hoo, Frank C Detterbeck

Open access · greenAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Chest, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 147 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
147citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
31.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

147 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 350 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Guideline
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Atencion primaria · 2018
    Guideline
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

87 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Peter J MazzoneRespiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: mazzonp@ccf.org.
Gerard A SilvestriDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Sheena PatelCHEST, Glenview, IL.
Jeffrey P KanneDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
Linda S KinsingerVHA National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Durham, NC.
Renda Soylemez WienerCenter for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial VA Hospital, Bedford, MA; The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
Guy Soo HooVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA.
Frank C DetterbeckSection of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
American College of Chest Physicians · USBoston University · USCleveland Clinic · USMedical University of South Carolina · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USVA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States in the past few years, in large part due to the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. The benefit and harms of low-dose chest CT screening differ in both frequency and magnitude. The translation of a favorable balance of benefit and harms into practice can be difficult. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low radiation dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

methodsApproved panelists developed key questions using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, as well as key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted by using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

resultsThe systematic literature review identified 59 studies that informed the response to the 12 PICO questions that were developed. Key clinical questions were addressed resulting in six graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus based statements.

conclusionsEvidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer results in a favorable but tenuous balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible patients, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can affect this balance. Additional research is needed to optimize the approach to low-dose CT screening.

Indexed as

AgedBiopsyCigarette SmokingConsensusEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineHumansLung NeoplasmsMiddle AgedRadiation DosageSystematic Reviews as TopicTomography, X-Ray Computedevidence-based medicineguidelineslung cancer

Identifiers

PMID29374513
OpenAlexW2784649105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.