ReviewThe open respiratory medicine journal2022
The Journey for Lung Cancer Screening where we Stand Today.
Review in The open respiratory medicine journal, 2022. 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.
- A fractional-order model for optimizing combination therapy in heterogeneous lung cancer: integrating immunotherapy and targeted therapy to minimize side effects.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Enhancing Lung Cancer Care in Portugal: Bridging Gaps for Improved Patient Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- CYP3A4 gene expression discloses individual differences in postoperative pain susceptibility and drug treatment response in patients with lung cancer.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a DNA damage repair-related gene-based prediction model for the prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide with many patients presenting with advanced disease. Objective: We reviewed the available literature for lung cancer screening using low dose computed tomography (LDCT). We reviewed the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), Early Lung Cancer Action Program (ELCAP) and the (Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON) trials. We also look at different lung cancer risk prediction models that may aid in identifying target populations and also discuss the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening in different groups of smokers and ex-smokers. Lastly, we discuss recent guideline changes that have occurred in line with new and emerging evidence on lung cancer screening. Conclusion: LDCT has been shown reduce lung cancer mortality in certain groups of current and former smokers and should be considered to help in the early diagnosis of lung cancer.
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.