ReviewCureus2024
Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose CT: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Results of a Swiss community-based pilot study on low-dose ct lung cancer screening.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung cancer is highly prevalent worldwide and is the leading cause of cancer-related death in Portugal. There is increasing evidence that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduces mortality; however, few countries have implemented screening strategies. This review aims to gather the best evidence to assess the relevance of implementing lung cancer screening. A search was conducted for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), systematic reviews (SRs), and meta-analyses (MAs) published between January 1, 2010, and January 31, 2024, as well as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1, 2019, and January 31, 2024, indexed in databases such as the National Guideline Clearinghouse, Cochrane Library, Guideline Finder, Canadian Medical Association, Evidence-Based Medicine Online, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), and PubMed. The MeSH terms used were "lung cancer" and "screening". To evaluate the level of evidence (LE) and strength of recommendation (SR) in the included MAs, the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) from the American Academy of Family Physicians was applied. A total of 460 articles were found, with two CPGs, six MAs, two SRs, and one RCT being selected. The CPGs recommend screening with LDCT for smokers with a smoking history of more than 20 pack-years, aged between 50 and 80 years. All MAs show statistically significant evidence of reduced mortality in screened patients, although without a reduction in all-cause mortality. However, there was some heterogeneity regarding the age of the target population and the screening follow-up period. Overdiagnosis rates varied between MAs. The SRs and RCT also demonstrated a reduction in lung cancer mortality, but not in all-cause mortality. LDCT lung cancer screening shows a reduction in disease-related mortality, suggesting that the implementation of organized screening for at-risk populations could have a significant positive impact. Some uncertainties remain regarding the best strategy for implementing organized screening programs.
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.