SynthesisPloS one2024
Effects of low dose computed tomography (LDCT) on lung cancer screening on incidence and mortality in regions with high tuberculosis prevalence: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benefits and harms of lung cancer screening strategies in Argentina: a modeling study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- Article
- Tuberculosis Preceding Lung Cancer: A Contemporary Meta-Analysis Revealing a Critical Gap in Post-2020 Evidence.Cancers · 2026Review
- Decentralizing Pulmonary Screening for China's Aging Population: From Hospitals to Communities.Aging and disease · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of deep learning-based and conventional reconstruction techniques for image quality enhancement in low-dose chest computed tomography.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Addressing the challenge of tuberculosis screening in diabetic populations: a narrative review of methods and strategies.Frontiers in public health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a strategy for early-stage diagnosis. The implementation of LDCT screening in countries with a high prevalence/incidence of tuberculosis (TB) is controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to identify whether LCS using LDCT increases early-stage diagnosis and decreases mortality, as well as the false-positive rate, in regions with a high prevalence of TB. METHODS/
designStudies were identified by searching BVS, PUBMED, EMBASE, and SCOPUS. RCT and cohort studies (CS) that show the effects of LDCT in LC screening on mortality and secondary outcomes were eligible. Two independent reviewers evaluated eligibility and a third judged disagreements. We used the Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR+) to extract the metadata and record decisions. The analyses were stratified by study design and incidence of TB. We used the Cochrane "Risk of bias" assessment tool.
resultsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were used. Thirty-seven papers were included, referring to 22 studies (10 RCTs and 12 cohorts). Few studies were from regions with a high incidence of TB (One RCT and four cohorts). Nonetheless, the evidence is compatible with European and USA studies. RCTs and CS also had consistent results. There is an increase in early-stage (I-II) diagnoses and reduced LC mortality in the LCDT arm compared to the control. Although false-positive rates varied, they stayed within the 20 to 30% range. DISCUSSION: This is the first meta-analysis of LDCT for LCS focused on its benefits in regions with an increased incidence/prevalence of TB. Although the specificity of Lung-RADS was higher in participants without TB sequelae than in those with TB sequelae, our findings point out that the difference does not invalidate implementing LDCT LCS in these regions.
trial registrationSystematic review registration Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022309581.
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.