Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31156302›Full record

ArticleChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu2019

Risk prediction models for lung cancer: Perspectives and dissemination.

Wei Tang, Qin Peng, Yanzhang Lyu, Xiaoshuang Feng, Xin Li, Luopei Wei, Ni Li, Hongda Chen, Wanqing Chen, Min Dai and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Advances and challenges in immunotherapy of small cell lung cancer.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Wei TangDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Qin PengDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Yanzhang LyuOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Xiaoshuang FengOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Xin LiOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Luopei WeiOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Ni LiOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Hongda ChenOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Wanqing ChenOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Min DaiOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Ning WuDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Jiang LiOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Yao HuangDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective was to systematically assess lung cancer risk prediction models by critical evaluation of methodology, transparency and validation in order to provide a direction for future model development.

methodsElectronic searches (including PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, and other official cancer websites) were completed with English and Chinese databases until April 30th, 2018. Main reported sources were input data, assumptions and sensitivity analysis. Model validation was based on statements in the publications regarding internal validation, external validation and/or cross-validation.

resultsTwenty-two studies (containing 11 multiple-use and 11 single-use models) were included. Original models were developed between 2003 and 2016. Most of these were from the United States. Multivariate logistic regression was widely used to identify a model. The minimum area under the curve for each model was 0.57 and the largest was 0.87. The smallest C statistic was 0.59 and the largest 0.85. Six studies were validated by external validation and three were cross-validated. In total, 2 models had a high risk of bias, 6 models reported the most used variables were age and smoking duration, and 5 models included family history of lung cancer.

conclusionsThe prediction accuracy of the models was high overall, indicating that it is feasible to use models for high-risk population prediction. However, the process of model development and reporting is not optimal with a high risk of bias. This risk affects prediction accuracy, influencing the promotion and further development of the model. In view of this, model developers need to be more attentive to bias risk control and validity verification in the development of models.

Indexed as

bronchogeniccarcinomaLung neoplasmsmodelsrisk assessmenttheoretical

Identifiers

PMID31156302
PMCPMC6513747

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.