SynthesisBMC cancer2024
Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of risk model-based and risk factor-based low-dose computed tomography screening strategies for lung cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness and implementation challenges of mobile low-dose computed tomography units for early lung cancer detection: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- The impact of prolonged air pollution exposure on urinary tract and male reproductive system infections: insights from a large-scale prospective cohort study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Diagnostic significance of the novel biomarker combination for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer detection: results of the blind clinical study.Frontiers in oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt has been proposed that risk model-based strategies could serve as viable alternatives to traditional risk factor-based approaches in lung cancer screening; however, there has been no systematic discussion. In this review, we provide an overview of the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of these two strategies in lung cancer screening application, as well as discussing possible future research directions.
methodsFollowing the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane libraries, and EMBASE from January 1994 to April 2024. Studies comparing risk model-based and risk factor-based low-dose computed tomography(LDCT) screening strategies for lung cancer were included, with data extracted on study characteristics, screening criteria, and outcomes such as sensitivity, specificity, lung cancer deaths averted, false positive, biopsies, overdiagnosis, radiation-related cancer, and cost-effectiveness measures, et al.
resultsA total of 16 fulfilled articles were included, comprising 6 model simulation studies, 9 retrospective cohort studies, and 1 interim analysis of a prospective cohort study. Risk model-based strategies generally demonstrated higher sensitivity, comparable specificity and lower radiation-related harms compared to risk factor-based strategies. However, there were variations in life years gained, quality-adjusted life years gained, lung cancer deaths averted and overdiagnosis cases, highlighting the need for optimal risk threshold determination. Risk model-based strategies showed a potential for greater cost-effectiveness, particularly when tailored to individual risk profiles. Furthermore, subgroup analyses revealed a higher net benefit in women, emphasizing the importance of sex-specific eligibility criteria.
conclusionRisk model-based LDCT screening strategies present a more sensitive and potentially more efficient approach for lung cancer detection. Future research should explore optimal risk thresholds for broader applicability, with attention to sex-specific criteria and individual risk factor dynamics.
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.