ArticleJournal of healthcare informatics research2018
Estimation of Lead Time via Low-Dose CT in the National Lung Screening Trial.
Article in Journal of healthcare informatics research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Notice of Retraction and Replacement. Wang L, et al. Opportunistic Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography and Lung Cancer Mortality in China. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(12):e2347176.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Opportunistic Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography and Lung Cancer Mortality in China.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- When to initiate cancer screening exam?Statistics and its interface · 2022Article
- Duration of lead time in screening for lung cancer.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Based on recent reports from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), smokers who were screened by low-dose computer tomography (LDCT) had a 20% lower chance of dying from lung cancer than those screened by chest X-rays. However, due to the complexities of lead time bias and over diagnosis, no formal test has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality. To correctly evaluate survival benefit due to early detection, it is critical to estimate lead time, the length of time that detection of a disease is advanced by screening. We applied a recently developed probability method to estimate lead time, using the LDCT data from NLST, where human lifetime was treated as random and derived from the actuarial life table of the US Social Security Administration. Using Bayesian posterior samples of key parameters extracted from the NLST-LDCT data, simulations on lead time were carried out on 16 hypothetical cohorts with four initial ages (55, 60, 65, and 70) and four future screening intervals (12, 18, 24, and 30 months). For each scenario, the estimated lead time for both screen-detected and interval cases is reported. Results show that the probability of no-early-detection (interval cases) increases monotonically when the screening interval increases for both genders. A male heavy smoker with an initial screening age at 60 has 11.65% (female 6.76%) chance of no-early-detection with annual screenings. This probability increases to 36.35% (female 28.26%) if the screenings were biennial. The mean lead time appears longer for women than for men. The mean lead time decreases when the screening interval increases, but it appears stable across different initial age groups. These results lay a foundation to evaluate survival benefit accurately with LDCT and to schedule future screening exams.
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.