Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32850015›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of radiology2020

Lung cancer screening, what has changed after the latest evidence?

Juan Carlos Trujillo-Reyes, Luis Seijo, Elisabeth Martínez-Tellez, Felipe Couñago

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Juan Carlos Trujillo-ReyesDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Hospital de la Santa Creu I Sant Pau, Barcelona 08029, Spain.
Luis SeijoDepartment of Pneumology, Clinica Universitaria de Navarra, Madrid 28029, Spain.
Elisabeth Martínez-TellezDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Hospital de la Santa Creu I Sant Pau, Barcelona 08029, Spain.
Felipe CouñagoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario Quirónsalud Madrid, Madrid 28223, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer (LC) is still one of the most frequent cancers with a high related mortality. Their prognosis is directly proportional to the stage at the time of diagnosis. Seventy percent are currently diagnosed in advanced or locally advanced stage (higher than stage III), making a cure unlikely for the majority of patients. Developments in LC treatment are significant however they do not seem to be enough to reverse the current situation, at least, in a short period of time. Despite recent advances in treatment, primary prevention and early diagnosis appear to be the key to reduce the incidence and mortality of this disease. Many countries have developed LC screening programs based on the results of clinical trials published in recent years. The aim of this paper is to review the latest results of the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek and compare them with the findings of the National Lung Screening Trial. We address the question whether it is necessary to continue discussing the evidence regarding LC screening. In both trials, there is a clear impact on LC mortality but, with a modest reduction in over all mortality. Undoubtedly, the benefit of screening can be expected to grow as low-dose computed tomographys are performed over longer periods of time.

Indexed as

EpidemiologyLow dose chest computed tomography scanLung cancerLung cancer screeningMolecular biomarkersPrimary prevention

Identifiers

PMID32850015
PMCPMC7422527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.