ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2023
National lung cancer screening program feasibility study in Estonia.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lung cancer screening in Finland: a prospective randomized trial.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Trial
- Strategies for sustainable lung cancer screening: a multi-faceted perspective to long-term surveillance in SOLACE.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Lung cancer screening knowledge, opinions and attitudes among healthcare professionals in Estonia prior to national program initiation.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
- HPV-associated cancers among people living with HIV: nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study 2004-21 in Estonia.European journal of public health · 2024Article
- Strengthening lung cancer screening in Europe: fostering participation, improving outcomes, and addressing health inequalities through collaborative initiatives in the SOLACE consortium.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe main aim of the lung cancer screening (LCS) feasibility study was to investigate the plausibility of and bottlenecks to systematic enrolment in family physician practices by evaluating all their patients.
methodsIn 3 family physician practices, for each individual born in 1947-1966 (target age group 55-74 years), information on ever smoking was gathered by a family physician/nurse. All current and ex-smokers were invited to an 'LCS visit'. In parallel, 2 inclusion criteria were used: (1) current smoker (≥20 pack-years) or ex-smoker (quit <15 years ago and smoking history ≥20 pack-years) and (2) PLCOm2012noRace risk score >1.5. All individuals with elevated lung cancer risk were assigned low-dose computed tomography.
resultsAmong the total 7035 individuals in the 3 family physician practices, the LCS target age group comprised 1208 individuals, including 649 (46.3-57.1%) males and 559 (42.9-53.7%) females. Of the 1208 applicable age group individuals, 395 (all current or ex-smokers) were invited to the 'LCS visit'. According to either 1 or both the LCS inclusion criteria, 206 individuals were referred to low-dose computed tomography, and 201 (97.6% of those referred) ended up taking it. The estimated participation rate in LCS, based on data from our feasibility study, would have been 87.4%.
conclusionsIn LCS, systematic enrolment of individuals by family physicians results in high uptake, and thus, effectiveness of the LCS in the setting of a well-functioning family physician system like in Estonia. Also, the feasibility study provided excellent input to the currently ongoing regional LCS pilot study in Estonia.
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.