Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34270965›Full record

GuidelineChest2021

Executive Summary: Screening for Lung Cancer: Chest Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

Peter J Mazzone, Gerard A Silvestri, Lesley H Souter, Tanner J Caverly, Jeffrey P Kanne, Hormuzd A Katki, Renda Soylemez Wiener, Frank C Detterbeck

Open access · greenAbstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Chest, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Peter J MazzoneRespiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: mazzonp@ccf.org.
Gerard A SilvestriMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Lesley H SouterCHEST, Glenview, IL.
Tanner J CaverlyAnn Arbor VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI; University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI.
Jeffrey P KanneUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
Hormuzd A KatkiNational Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Renda Soylemez WienerCenter for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research, Boston, MA; VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
Frank C DetterbeckYale University, New Haven, CT.
American College of Chest Physicians · USBoston University · USCleveland Clinic · USMedical University of South Carolina · USNational Institutes of Health · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USVA Center for Clinical Management Research · USYale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
HSRD VA IK2 HX002246NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer has become a standard of care in the United States, in large part because of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). Additional evidence supporting the net benefit of low-dose chest CT screening for lung cancer, and increased experience in minimizing the potential harms, has accumulated since the prior iteration of these guidelines. Here, we update the evidence base for the benefit, harms, and implementation of low-dose chest CT screening. We use the updated evidence base to provide recommendations where the evidence allows, and statements based on experience and expert consensus where it does not.

methodsApproved panelists reviewed previously developed key questions using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format to address the benefit and harms of low-dose CT screening, and key areas of program implementation. A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library on a quarterly basis since the time of the previous guideline publication. Reference lists from relevant retrievals were searched, and additional papers were added. Retrieved references were reviewed for relevance by two panel members. The quality of the evidence was assessed for each critical or important outcome of interest using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Important clinical questions were addressed based on the evidence developed from the systematic literature review. Graded recommendations and ungraded statements were drafted, voted on, and revised until consensus was reached.

resultsThe systematic literature review identified 75 additional studies that informed the response to the 12 key questions that were developed. Additional clinical questions were addressed resulting in seven graded recommendations and nine ungraded consensus statements.

conclusionsEvidence suggests that low-dose CT screening for lung cancer can result in a favorable balance of benefit and harms. The selection of screen-eligible individuals, the quality of imaging and image interpretation, the management of screen-detected findings, and the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions can impact this balance.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerSmokingAsymptomatic DiseasesDecision Making, SharedHumansLungLung NeoplasmsPatient SelectionRadiologic HealthRisk AssessmentSmoking CessationTomography, X-Ray ComputedUnited Statesguidelineslung cancerscreening

Identifiers

PMID34270965
PMCPMC8727851
OpenAlexW3180188609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.