ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2024
Identifying the population to be targeted in a lung cancer screening programme in Denmark.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 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.
- Estimating Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening in Ireland: A Dynamic Modelling Study of Smoking Trends.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- Towards Personalised Screening for Lung Cancer: A Sex-Stratified Approach in a Danish Cohort Integrating Pre-Diagnostic Systemic Inflammatory Indexes with Smoking Status and Age.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2026Article
- Feasibility of lung cancer screening in low-risk populations of the Nordic countries.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Review
- From Lung Cancer Predictive Models toJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
introductionWe assessed the impact of recruitment criteria on lung cancer detection in a future Danish screening programme with low-dose CT.
methodsWe combined data from two Danish population-based health examination surveys with eligibility criteria from seven randomised controlled trials on lung cancer screening. Incident lung cancers were identified by linkage with the National Pathology Data Bank (Patobank). For an average of 4.4 years of follow-up, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, efficient frontier and number needed to screen (NNS) for lung cancer detection.
resultsWhen applying the different eligibility criteria to the 48 171 persons invited to the two surveys, the number of lung cancer cases identified in the target groups varied from 46 to 68. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) criteria had the highest sensitivity of 62.6% (95% CI 52.7 to 71.8) and the Dutch-Belgian NEderlands-Leuvens Screening ONderzoek (NELSON) criteria had the highest specificity 81.6% (95% CI 81.0 to 82.1). Sensitivity was higher for men than for women (NLST criteria 71.7% (95% CI 57.7 to 83.2) and 53.7% (95% CI 39.6 to 67.4), respectively). The NLST criteria identified the target population obtaining the lowest NNS with 46.3. The application of the NLST criteria showed that the higher the sensitivity, the lower the number of false-negative cases and, thus, the lower the NNS.
conclusionsThis study highlights the impact of the definition of the at-risk population on lung cancer screening efficacy. We found lower sensitivity among women regardless of screening criteria used. This should be carefully addressed in a possible screening programme.
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.