ReviewSingapore medical journal2026
Lung cancer screening for never smokers: current evidence and future directions.
Review in Singapore medical journal, 2026. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- From screening to recovery in respiratory and critical care.Singapore medical journal · 2026Article
- Reducing the burden of lung cancer through primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary prevention.Singapore medical journal · 2025Article
- Single-Round LDCT Screening in Men Aged ≥ 70 Years: Prevalence of Pulmonary Nodules and Lung Cancer Detection.Cancers · 2025Article
- Young lung cancer: from diagnosis to survivorship.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractScreening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography is an established means for early lung cancer detection in smokers, but the role of screening for never smokers is unclear. In the 13 lung cancer screening studies involving unselected never smokers, detection rates ranged from 0.1% to 1.1% and positive predictive values ranged from 0.4% to 4.5%. In three lung cancer screening studies involving selected never smokers, selection was based primarily on occupational asbestos exposure, environmental radon exposure and family history of lung cancer in first-degree relatives. Detection rates ranged from 0.3% to 2.6%, and positive predictive values ranged from 0.7% to 15%. Also, 80%-100% of lung cancer cases discovered by screening were early stage, with limited data suggesting survival benefit. Lung cancer screening for never smokers with selected risk factors may achieve detection rates similar to those of screening for high-risk ever smokers. However, further research on optimal subject selection, alternative screening methods and clinical/economic outcomes is needed.
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.