Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33141158›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Evaluation of a Low-Dose Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Program in Henan, China.

Lan-Wei Guo, Qiong Chen, Yin-Chen Shen, Qing-Cheng Meng, Li-Yang Zheng, Yue Wu, Xiao-Qin Cao, Hui-Fang Xu, Shu-Zheng Liu, Xi-Bin Sun and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lan-Wei GuoHenan Engineering Research Center of Cancer Prevention and Control, Henan International Joint Laboratory of Cancer Prevention, Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Henan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Qiong ChenHenan Engineering Research Center of Cancer Prevention and Control, Henan International Joint Laboratory of Cancer Prevention, Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Henan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Yin-Chen ShenDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Qing-Cheng MengDepartment of Radiology, Henan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Li-Yang ZhengHenan Engineering Research Center of Cancer Prevention and Control, Henan International Joint Laboratory of Cancer Prevention, Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Henan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Yue WuDepartment of Radiology, Henan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Xiao-Qin CaoHenan Engineering Research Center of Cancer Prevention and Control, Henan International Joint Laboratory of Cancer Prevention, Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Henan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Hui-Fang XuHenan Engineering Research Center of Cancer Prevention and Control, Henan International Joint Laboratory of Cancer Prevention, Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Henan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Shu-Zheng LiuHenan Engineering Research Center of Cancer Prevention and Control, Henan International Joint Laboratory of Cancer Prevention, Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Henan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Xi-Bin SunHenan Engineering Research Center of Cancer Prevention and Control, Henan International Joint Laboratory of Cancer Prevention, Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Henan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
You-Lin QiaoHenan Engineering Research Center of Cancer Prevention and Control, Henan International Joint Laboratory of Cancer Prevention, Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Henan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Shao-Kai ZhangHenan Engineering Research Center of Cancer Prevention and Control, Henan International Joint Laboratory of Cancer Prevention, Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Henan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Henan Cancer Hospital · CNZhengzhou University · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Lung cancer screening has been widely implemented in Europe and the US. However, there is little evidence on participation and diagnostic yields in population-based lung cancer screening in China. Objective: To assess the participation rate and detection rate of lung cancer in a population-based screening program and the factors associated with participation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China from October 2013 to October 2019, with follow-up until March 10, 2020. The program is conducted at centers in 8 cities in Henan Province, China. Eligible participants were aged 40 to 74 and were evaluated for a high risk for lung cancer using an established risk score system. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall and group-specific participation rates by common factors, such as age, sex, and educational level, were calculated. Differences in participation rates between those groups were compared. The diagnostic yield of both screening and nonscreening groups was calculated. Results: The study recruited 282 377 eligible participants and included 55 428 with high risk for lung cancer; the mean (SD) age was 55.3 (8.1) years, and 34 966 participants (63.1%) were men. A total of 22 260 participants underwent LDCT (participation rate, 40.16%; 95% CI, 39.82%-40.50%). The multivariable logistic regression model showed that female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.52-1.78), former smoking (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41), lack of physical activity (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24), family history of lung cancer (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.66-1.79), and 7 other factors were associated with increased participation of LDCT screening. Overall, at 6-year follow-up, 78 participants in the screening group (0.35%; 95% CI, 0.29%-0.42%) and 125 in the nonscreening group (0.38%; 95% CI, 0.33%-0.44%) had lung cancer detected, which resulted in an odds ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.70-1.23; P = .61). Conclusions and Relevance: The low participations rate in the program studied suggests that an improved strategy is needed. These findings may provide useful information for designing effective population-based lung cancer screening strategies in the future.

Indexed as

AdultAgedChinaCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID33141158
PMCPMC7610188
OpenAlexW3095394173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.