SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2025
Efficacy of Interventions Intended to Increase Lung Cancer Screening Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. 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.
- Prostate Cancer Mortality in Men not Attending a Population-based Screening Program: The 'Good', the 'Bad', and the 'Ugly' After 20-yr Follow-up in the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer.European urology open science · 2026Article
- Lung cancer screening completion rates and neighborhood disadvantage among primary care patients in an integrated delivery network health system: a retrospective data analysis.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Geospatial Analysis of Accredited Lung Cancer Screening Facilities in Florida Reveals Suboptimal Alignment with High-Risk Populations.Cancer research communications · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Recruiting Latinos for a Lung Cancer Screening Study Through a Patient Portal.Thoracic cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew eligible patients in the United States participate in lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).
objectiveWhat is the efficacy of interventions to increase LCS participation?
designWe performed a systematic review following a prespecified protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021283984). In June/July of 2021, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Epistemonikos from 1946 to October 2021 to identify studies evaluating interventions to increase LCS participation.
participantsThirteen of 2761 studies met inclusion criteria for data extraction. Of these, six had results available (five RCTs and one prospective observational study). The studies had predominantly White and non-Hispanic participants. MAIN MEASURES: An intention-to-treat analysis was used to calculate each study's relative risk (RR) to increase LCS. Effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model with a subgroup analysis for multi- versus single-step interventions. Risk of bias was evaluated with the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). KEY
resultsOverall, the proportion of screening LDCTs performed did not improve in the intervention group relative to the comparator group (RR [95% CI] of 1.30 [0.74, 2.29]), and meta-analysis indicated high heterogeneity of studies (I
conclusionEvidence on efficacy of interventions to increase LCS participation is limited due to a small number of prospective studies performed in non-diverse populations with critical risk of bias. Further, overall, studied interventions did not improve lung cancer screening participation, though interventions targeting multiple barriers may have some benefit.
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.