Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38926820›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2024

Assessing the efficiency of eligibility criteria for low-dose computed tomography lung screening in China according to current guidelines.

Yanyan Tang, Lina Zhou, Fei Wang, Yao Huang, Jianwei Wang, Shijun Zhao, Linlin Qi, Li Liu, Min Liang, Donghui Hou and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Over- and underscreening for lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Yanyan Tang *Department of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Lina Zhou *Department of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Fei WangOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yao HuangDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Jianwei WangDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Shijun ZhaoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Linlin QiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Li LiuDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Min LiangDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China.
Donghui HouDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Zhijian XuDepartment of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100020, China.
Kai ZhangDepartment of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100020, China.
Wei TangDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China. tang.wei@vip.163.com.
Ning WuDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China. cjr.wuning@vip.163.com.

Funding

Beijing Hope Run Special Fund of Cancer Foundation of China LC2021A25National Key R&D Program of China 2017YFC1308700the National Key R&D Program of China 2020AAA0109500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence from observational studies indicates that lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines with high rates of lung cancer (LC) underdiagnosis, and although current screening guidelines have been updated and eligibility criteria for screening have been expanded, there are no studies comparing the efficiency of LCS guidelines in Chinese population.

methodsBetween 2005 and 2022, 31,394 asymptomatic individuals were screened using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) at our institution. Demographic data and relevant LC risk factors were collected. The efficiency of the LCS for each guideline criteria was expressed as the efficiency ratio (ER). The inclusion rates, eligibility rates, LC detection rates, and ER based on the different eligibility criteria of the four guidelines were comparatively analyzed. The four guidelines were as follows: China guideline for the screening and early detection of lung cancer (CGSL), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP).

resultsOf 31,394 participants, 298 (155 women, 143 men) were diagnosed with LC. For CGSL, NCCN, USPSTF, and I-ELCAP guidelines, the eligibility rates for guidelines were 13.92%, 6.97%, 6.81%, and 53.46%; ERe for eligibility criteria were 1.46%, 1.64%, 1.51%, and 1.13%, respectively; and for the inclusion rates, they were 19.0%, 9.5%, 9.3%, and 73.0%, respectively. LCs which met the screening criteria of CGSL, NCCN, USPSTF, and I-ELCAP guidelines were 29.2%, 16.4%, 14.8%, and 86.6%, respectively. The age and smoking criteria for CGSL were stricter, hence resulting in lower rates of LC meeting the screening criteria. The CGSL, NCCN, and USPSTF guidelines showed the highest underdiagnosis in the 45-49 age group (17.4%), while the I-ELCAP guideline displayed the highest missed diagnosis rate (3.0%) in the 35-39 age group. Males and females significantly differed in eligibility based on the criteria of the four guidelines (P < 0.001).

conclusionsThe I-ELCAP guideline has the highest eligibility rate for both males and females. But its actual efficiency ratio for those deemed eligible by the guideline was the lowest. Whereas the NCCN guideline has the highest ERe value for those deemed eligible by the guideline.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedChinaFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicEfficiencyEligibility criteriaGuidelineLDCTLung cancer screening

Identifiers

PMID38926820
PMCPMC11210050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.