GuidelineChest2018
Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.
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.
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
147 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 350 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Interventions Intended to Increase Lung Cancer Screening Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Pooled it
- The prevalence of comorbidity in the lung cancer screening population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of medical screening · 2023Pooled it
- Guideline
- Guideline
- Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2020Guideline
- Guideline
- Management of Lung Nodules and Lung Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic: CHEST Expert Panel Report.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2020Guideline
- Safety and Efficacy of Enoxaparin in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Advances in therapy · 2020Pooled it
- Effects of low-dose computed tomography on lung cancer screening: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Benefits and Risks of Clopidogrel vs. Aspirin Monotherapy after Recent Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2019Pooled it
- Guideline
- Effect of Incidental Findings Information on Lung Cancer Screening Intent: a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Trial
- Association between patient-physician relationship and overall survival among African Americans with lung cancer: the Detroit Research on Cancer Survivors study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- GCC2 in Small Extracellular Vesicles as a Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarker of Early-Stage Lung Adenocarcinoma.Journal of extracellular vesicles · 2026Article
- European Code Against Cancer, 5th edition - organised cancer screening programmes.Molecular oncology · 2026Review
- 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
- Effectiveness of Technology-Based Interventions in Promoting Lung Cancer Screening Uptake and Decision-Making Among Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Resection of organizing pneumonia with leftover adjacent cystic squamous lung carcinoma: A case report and literature review.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- An early lung cancer diagnosis model for non-smokers incorporating ct imaging analysis and circulating genetically abnormal cells (CACs).BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Data-integration with pseudoweights and survey-calibration: application to developing US-representative lung cancer risk models for use in screening.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2025Article
87 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.