ArticleJournal of community health2020
Examining Gender Differences in Lung Cancer Screening.
Article in Journal of community health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and implementation challenges of mobile low-dose computed tomography units for early lung cancer detection: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Sex Differences in Cancer Stage at Diagnosis of Nonreproductive Solid Organ Tumors in the United States, 2015 to 2022.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Effects of Sex on Mortality in Patients With Lung Cancer: A Multiple Mediation Analysis of The Boston Lung Cancer Study.Clinical lung cancer · 2026Article
- Bridging Mammography and Lung Cancer Screening: Eligibility, Uptake and Potential Impact.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Lessons Learned From International Lung Cancer Screening Trials; People at Risk Deserve Screening for Early Detection.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2025Review
- The Impact of a Public Awareness Campaign on Perceptions of Lung Cancer Risk Factors and Screening Guidelines.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluating lung cancer screening disparities in an integrated healthcare system: barriers and opportunities.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Gender oncology: recommendations and consensus of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM).ESMO open · 2024Article
- Effects of joint screening for prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer - results from a controlled trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Disparities in thoracic surgical oncology.Journal of surgical oncology · 2023Review
- Sex disparities in lung cancer survival rates based on screening status.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Article
- Population-Level Trends in Lung Cancer Mortality and Stage Distribution During the USPSTF LDCT Guideline Era: A Multi-Database Quasi-Experimental Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
It is unknown if gender influences outcome of lung cancer screening with Low Dose CT (LDCT), especially with frequent and continued underrepresentation of women in clinical trials. We examined a balanced cohort of men and women with the hypothesis that there would be no difference in participation or results between men and women undergoing lung cancer screening. In an urban, academic medical center, we prospectively collected data on patients referred for lung cancer screening from October 2015 to August 2018. We studied gender, age, ethnicity, level of education and smoking history. We measured results of LDCT using Lung-RADS reporting system. 546 patients underwent LDCT between October 2015 and August 2018. 279 (51%) were female and 267 (49%) were males. Age, education status or smoking patterns did not significantly differ between females and males There was a significant difference between males and females in the distribution of LDCT results (p = 0.05). 81 females and 105 males were diagnosed with Lung-RADS 1; 99 females and 92 males with Lung-RADS 2; 15 females and 8 males with Lung-RADS 3; 19 females and 11 males with Lung-RADS 4. Overall, 10 females (3.5%) and 3 males (1.1%) were diagnosed with lung cancer (risk difference 2.4, 95% CI-0.0006-0.05, p = 0.09). Women are often underrepresented in clinical trials. Preliminary results from our lung cancer screening program demonstrate equal participation and equal benefit from the screening program. Long term data is needed to study survival benefit.
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.