ArticleJAMA network open2021
Evaluation of Revised US Preventive Services Task Force Lung Cancer Screening Guideline Among Women and Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations.
Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07073898 (Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Population Health Management Approaches to Increase Lung Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers - UG3 Pilot Clinical Trial
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 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
- Racial inequalities in eligibility and access to lung cancer screening: systematic review of United States studies.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of Patient Navigation on Completion of Lung Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Populations.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2024Trial
- Assessing Barriers and Facilitators to Lung Cancer Screening: Initial Findings from a Patient Navigation Intervention.Population health management · 2023Trial
- Informing the cultural adaptation of a lung cancer screening shared decision-making and navigation intervention for Hispanic adults: a qualitative study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Lung cancer screening eligibility and completion among adults diagnosed with lung cancer: retrospective analysis of 2024 National Health Interview Survey.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Among Patients Diagnosed With Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2026Article
- Inherited genetic risk factors in young-onset lung cancer.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Patients with high distressed communities index score are at risk for "no-show" to lung cancer screening appointments.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Personalizing lung cancer screening recommendations for heterogeneous populations: a microsimulation study.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Structured narrative review on lung cancer screening: current evidence, clinical practice implications and implementation insights from a multidisciplinary task force and patient representatives.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Review
- Review
- Mortality in a Diverse, Real-World Lung Cancer Screening Cohort.Clinical lung cancer · 2025Observational
- Characteristics of the Newly Eligible Population under Two Recent Updates of Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- Individual- and Group-Level Disparities Between Racial and Ethnic Groups in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility Criteria.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Patient-clinician discussions on lung cancer screening in the United States before and after 2021 guidelines.Translational behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Lung Cancer Screening Uptake under the Revised United States Preventive Services Task Force Guideline: Assessing Disparities.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Article
- Healthcare disparities, screening, and molecular testing in the changing landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: a review.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2024Review
- The potential high-risk population for lung cancer screening: determination of initial screening age and heterogeneity in histology and sex.Translational lung cancer research · 2024Article
- Comparison of the characteristics of the population eligible for lung cancer screening under 2013 and population newly eligible under 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Lung cancer incidence and mortality disproportionately affect women and racial/ethnic minority populations, yet screening guidelines for the past several years were derived from clinical trials of predominantly White men. To reflect current evidence, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has revised the eligibility criteria, which may help to ameliorate sex- and race/ethnicity-related disparities in lung cancer screening. Objective: To determine the changes associated with the revised USPSTF guideline for lung cancer screening eligibility among female, Black, and Hispanic populations using a large nationwide survey. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included respondents to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System who were 50 to 80 years of age with a smoking history in 19 states that used the optional lung cancer screening module. The change in eligibility among female, male, Black, Hispanic, and White participants was examined. Eligibility by sex and race/ethnicity was compared with a reference population. Data were collected from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018, and analyzed from May 8 to June 11, 2020. Exposures: Self-reported sex, race/ethnicity, age, and smoking history. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lung cancer screening eligibility using the revised USPSTF criteria. The previous criteria included current or past smokers (within 15 years) who were 55 to 80 years of age and had a smoking history of more than 30 pack-years. In the revised criteria, age was modified to 50 to 80 years; smoking history, to 20 pack-years. Results: Among 40 869 respondents aged 50 to 80 years with a smoking history, 21 265 (52.0%) were women, 3430 (8.4%) were Black, and 1226 (30.0%) were Hispanic (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [7.9] years). The revised criteria increased eligibility for the following populations: men (29.4% to 38.3% [8.9% difference]; P < .001), women (25.9% to 36.4% [10.5% difference]; P < .001), White individuals (31.1% to 40.9% [9.8% difference]; P < .001), Black individuals (16.3% to 28.8% [12.5% difference]; P < .001), and Hispanic individuals (10.5% to 18.7% [8.2% difference]; P < .001). The odds of eligibility were lower for women compared with men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.99; P = .04) and for Black (AOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.33-0.56; P < .001) and Hispanic populations (AOR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.80; P < .001) compared with the White population. Conclusions and Relevance: The revised USPSTF guideline may likely increase lung cancer screening rates for female, Black, and Hispanic populations. However, despite these potential improvements, lung cancer screening inequities may persist without tailored eligibility criteria.
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.