ArticleLung2023
Lung Cancer Screening Penetration in an Urban Underserved County.
Article in Lung, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- LUNG Year in Review: 2023.Lung · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare residential geography, sex, socioeconomic status (SES), and race/ethnicity of patients screened at Montefiore's Lung Cancer Screening Program with those of patients diagnosed with lung cancer, assessing whether screening efforts are appropriately focused.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study involved patients within a multisite urban medical center undergoing lung cancer screening or diagnosed with lung cancer from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. Inclusion criteria were residence within the Bronx, NY and age between 55 and 80 years. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon two-sample t test and χ
resultsThe cohorts comprised 1568 (50.3%) women and 1551 (49.7%) men (mean age 65.6 ± 6.16). The Southeast Bronx had the most diagnosed lung cancers (29.96%) and screenings (31.22%). Sex did not significantly differ (p = 0.053). Cancer and screening cohorts were from impoverished neighborhoods with mean SES of - 3.11 ± 2.78 and - 3.44 ± 2.80 (p < 0.01). The lower tier SES neighborhoods demonstrated more patients in the screening cohort than cancer cohort (p = 0.01). Both cohorts included a majority of Hispanic patients, although race/ethnicity differed significantly (p = 0.01). Lower SES neighborhoods showed no significant difference in race/ethnicity between cancer and screening cohorts (p = 0.262).
conclusionThough statistically significant differences were found between cohorts, likely due to sample size, few clinically meaningful differences were found, implying our lung cancer screening program was effective in reaching the desired population. Demographics-based programs should be considered in global efforts to screen vulnerable populations.
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.