Observational studyThorax2025
Improving uptake of lung cancer screening: an observational study on the impact of timed appointments and reminders.
Observational study in Thorax, 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.
- Strategies for sustainable lung cancer screening: a multi-faceted perspective to long-term surveillance in SOLACE.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening in Switzerland: A Comparative Analysis of Three Data Sources From Lausanne and the Canton of Vaud.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Precision Medicine in Lung Cancer Screening: A Paradigm Shift in Early Detection-Precision Screening for Lung Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces lung cancer-related mortality; however, uptake remains low compared with other cancer screening programmes. In this observational study, we report the impact of timed appointments and reminders on participation in our regional LCS programme.Initial uptake of timed appointments was 53.0% (n=17 274/32 593), higher than previously reported in the UK, while initial uptake of open invitations was 29.8% (n=10 246/34 371). Among initial non-responders, 17.5% (n=4263/24 400) completed triage following a reminder. The increased participation following reminders only partially offset the significant difference in initial uptake between the two appointment types.Timed appointments and reminders are strongly advocated to increase participation in national LCS programmes.
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.