GuidelineChest2021
Screening for Lung Cancer: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.
Guideline in Chest, 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 140 papers, 7 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
140 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Pooled it
- Time to Benefit for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Survival Meta-Analysis.American journal of preventive medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Changes in quality of life of early-stage lung cancer patients undergoing sublobar resection: a systematic review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Brazilian Thoracic Society recommendations for the diagnosis and monitoring of asbestos-exposed individuals.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2024Guideline
- Impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer-related mortality.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Lung cancer risk prediction models based on pulmonary nodules: A systematic review.Thoracic cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Real-time AR navigation with dynamic tracking for millimeter-level pulmonary nodule localization: A randomized clinical trial.Cell reports. Medicine · 2026Trial
- Effect of a Personalized Tobacco Treatment Intervention on Smoking Abstinence in Individuals Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Feasibility and acceptability of an everyday patient-centered discussion model for primary care: An exploratory, single-center study in the VA primary care setting.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- The urinary-metabolite-based lung cancer index (uLCI): an interpretable machine-learning risk model for early-stage disease.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Study of the Spectral-Luminescent Properties of Saliva in Patients With Lung Cancer.Journal of biophotonics · 2026Article
- Trends in lung cancer survival: superior outcomes in US Veterans compared with the general population.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2026Article
- Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome and lung cancer: does the risk meet the threshold for lung cancer screening?Familial cancer · 2026Review
- Moving From Individualized Risk-Based Prevention to Benefit-Based Prevention: Estimating Individualized Life-Years Gained From Prevention Services as a Basis for Eligibility.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- A DNA Methylation-based algorithm Improves Lung Cancer risk prediction in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Lung cancer screening care pathways in community settings: an examination of 3 healthcare systems.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026Article
80 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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 when enough evidence was available. 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
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.