ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2024
Comparison of the characteristics of the population eligible for lung cancer screening under 2013 and population newly eligible under 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Process perspectives on lung cancer screening in primary care: a qualitative study of providers and staff in an urban U.S. healthcare system.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Characteristics of the Newly Eligible Population under Two Recent Updates of Lung Cancer Screening Recommendations.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised their 2013 recommendations for lung cancer screening eligibility by lowering the pack-year history from 30+ to 20+ pack-years and the recommended age from 55 to 50 years. Simulation studies suggest that Black persons and females will benefit most from these changes, but it is unclear how the revised USPSTF recommendations will impact geographic, health-related, and other sociodemographic characteristics of those eligible.
methodsThis cross-sectional study employed data from the 2017-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys from 23 states to compare age, gender, race, marital, sexual orientation, education, employment, comorbidity, vaccination, region, and rurality characteristics of the eligible population according to the original 2013 USPSTF recommendations with the revised 2021 USPSTF recommendations using chi-squared tests. This study compared those originally eligible to those newly eligible using the BRFSS raking-dervived weighting variable.
resultsThere were 30,190 study participants. The results of this study found that eligibility increased by 62.4% due to the revised recommendations. We found that the recommendation changes increased the proportion of eligible females (50.1% vs 44.1%), Black persons (9.2% vs 6.6%), Hispanic persons (4.4% vs 2.7%), persons aged 55-64 (55.8% vs 52.6%), urban-dwellers(88.3% vs 85.9%), unmarried (3.4% vs 2.5%) and never married (10.4% vs 6.6%) persons, as well as non-retirees (76.5% vs 56.1%) Respondents without comorbidities and COPD also increased.
conclusionIt is estimated that the revision of the lung cancer screening recommendations decreased eligibility disparities in sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, respiratory comorbidities, and vaccination status. Research will be necessary to estimate whether uptake patterns subsequently follow the expanded eligibility patterns.
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.