ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2020
Rates of positive lung cancer screening examinations in academic versus community practice.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond Screening Populations: Context-Dependent Performance of Lung Cancer Risk Assessment Strategies in a Diagnostically Enriched Cohort.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Budget Impact of the LungFlag™ Predictive Risk Model for Lung Cancer Screening.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- Nodule Characteristics, Clinical Risk Factors, and Radiologist Experience as Predictors of Positive Baseline LDCT Screening Results.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Differences in lung cancer screening outcomes and follow-up by patient, provider and place-based characteristics in Missouri and Illinois: A cross-sectional study.Research square · 2025Article
- Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025Review
- Positive Screens Are More Likely in a National Lung Cancer Screening Registry Than the National Lung Screening Trial.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
- Community-based Lung Cancer Screening Results in Relation to Patient and Radiologist Characteristics: The PROSPR Consortium.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The benefits and harms of lung cancer screening reported in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) likely differ from those observed in academic and community settings. High rates of positive screening findings in the NLST led to the development of the Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) to standardize interpretation and reporting. We conducted a prospective observational study of lung cancer screening data from four lung cancer screening sites in North Carolina to compare prospective use of Lung-RADS in a real-world screened population versus Lung-RADS retrospectively applied to the NLST, and to determine if Lung-RADS assessment use differs in academic versus community settings. We included 4,037 screening examinations from 11/2014 to 12/2018 in academic and community sites and 75,126 NLST LDCT screening exams. On baseline screening exams, the proportion of positive LDCT exams was higher in community versus academic sites or the NLST (17.7%
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.