ReviewPortuguese journal of public health2024
Current Evidence for a Lung Cancer Screening Program.
Review in Portuguese journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Segmentectomy Versus Lobectomy in Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis in Northern Italy.Thoracic cancer · 2025Article
- Diagnostic tools in respiratory medicine (Review).Biomedical reports · 2025Review
- Article
- Optimal Pathways to Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care Settings: A Scoping Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Teleconsultation for Delivering Low-Dose Computed Tomography Reports in a Mobile Lung Cancer Screening Program in a Low- and Middle-Income Country: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer screening is still in an early phase compared to other cancer screening programs, despite its high lethality particularly when diagnosed late. Achieving early diagnosis is crucial to obtain optimal outcomes. Summary: In this review, we will address the current evidence on lung cancer screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and its impact on mortality reduction, existing screening recommendations, patient eligibility criteria, screening frequency and duration, benefits and harms, cost-effectiveness and some insights on lung cancer screening implementation and adoption. Additionally, new non-imaging, noninvasive biomarkers with high diagnostic potential are also briefly highlighted. Key Messages: LDCT screening in a prespecified population based on age and smoking history proved to reduce lung cancer mortality. Optimization of the target population and management of LDCT pitfalls can further improve lung cancer screening efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Novel screening technologies and biomarkers being studied can potentially be game-changers in lung cancer screening and diagnosis.
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.