ReviewTranslational lung cancer research2021
Participation in lung cancer screening.
Review in Translational lung cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recruitment strategies and outcomes in lung cancer screening programmes: a scoping review.European radiology · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Participation.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Implementation of the NHS England Lung Cancer Screening Programme over 5 years.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Ready to screen implementation trial protocol: a cluster randomized implementation trial comparing a bundled implementation strategy versus a simple implementation strategy to improve intention to screen in the Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program.Implementation science : IS · 2026Article
- Article
- Supporting clinical trial recruitment in COPD by leveraging lung cancer screening: an observational study.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Improving uptake of lung cancer screening: an observational study on the impact of timed appointments and reminders.Thorax · 2025Observational
- Racism, discrimination, medical mistrust, stigma, and lung cancer screening: a scoping review.Ethnicity & health · 2025Article
- Article
- Smoking status, symptom significance and healthcare seeking with lung cancer symptoms in the Danish general population.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Optimal Pathways to Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care Settings: A Scoping Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of risk prediction models to select lung cancer screening participants in Europe: a prospective cohort consortium analysis.The Lancet. Digital health · 2024Article
- Current Evidence for a Lung Cancer Screening Program.Portuguese journal of public health · 2024Review
- Screening for liver fibrosis: lessons from colorectal and lung cancer screening.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024Review
- Developing a General Population Screening Programme for Paediatric Type 1 Diabetes: Evidence from a Qualitative Study of the Perspectives and Attitudes of Parents.Pediatric diabetes · 2024Article
- Assessing, updating and utilising primary care smoking records for lung cancer screening.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
- Recruitment strategies and interventions to increase participation in lung cancer screening programmes: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Review
- Implementing Lung Cancer Screening in Europe: Taking a Systems Approach.JTO clinical and research reports · 2022Review
- Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening by low-dose CT in China: a micro-simulation study.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although there is now strong evidence for the efficacy of low-radiation dose computed tomography in reducing lung cancer mortality, the challenge is to establish screening programmes that have the maximum impact on the disease. In screening programmes, participation rates are a major determinant of the success of the programme. Informed uptake, participation, and adherence (to successive screening rounds) determine the overall impact of the intervention by ensuring the maximum number of people at risk of the disease are screened regularly and therefore have the most chance of benefiting. Existing cancer screening programmes have taught us a great deal about methods that improve participation. Although evidence is emerging for the efficacy of some of those methods in lung cancer screening, there is still much work to do in the specific demographic that is most at risk of lung cancer. This demographic, characterised by higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation, may be less willing to engage with healthcare interventions and present a particular challenge in the process of ensuring informed choice. In this article we review the evidence for improving participation and describe the challenges that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of CT screening programmes.
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.