ArticleLung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022
Procedural complications associated with invasive diagnostic procedures after lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.
Article in Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early Detection of Lung Cancer: A Review of Innovative Milestones and Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The role of interventional pulmonology in management of pulmonary nodules during lung cancer screening.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2025Review
- Toward a Computable Phenotype for Determining Eligibility of Lung Cancer Screening Using Electronic Health Records.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Rates of Downstream Procedures and Complications Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Routine Clinical Practice : A Retrospective Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Association between anogenital distance as a noninvasive index in the diagnosis and prognosis of reproductive disorder: A systematic review.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlthough the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has proven low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is effective for lung cancer screening, little is known about complication rates from invasive diagnostic procedures (IDPs) after LDCT in real-world settings. In this study, we used the real-world data from a large clinical research network to estimate the complication rates associated with IDPs after LDCT.
methodsUsing 2014-2021 electronic health records and claims data from the OneFlorida clinical research network, we identified case individuals who underwent an IDP (i.e., cytology or needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, thoracic surgery, and other surgery) within 12 months of their first LDCT. We matched each case with one control individual who underwent an LDCT but without any IDPs. We calculated 3-month incremental complication rates as the difference in the complication rate between the case and control groups by IDP and complication severity.
resultsAmong 7,041 individuals who underwent an LDCT, 301 (4.3%) subsequently had an IDP within 12 months following the LDCT. The overall 3-month incremental complication rate was 16.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.9% - 23.1%), higher than that reported in the NLST (9.4%). The overall incremental complication rate was 5.6% (95% CI: 1.9% - 9.6%) for major, 8.6% (95% CI: 3.1% - 14.1%) for intermediate, and 13.2% (95% CI: 8.1% - 18.5%) for minor complications.
conclusionsIt is important to ensure adherence to clinical guidelines for nodule management and downstream work-up to minimize potential harms from screening.
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.