SynthesisChest2025
Lung Cancer Screening Adherence in Centralized vs Decentralized Screening Programs: A Meta-Analysis of US Cohort Studies Among Individuals With Negative Baseline Results.
Synthesis in Chest, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health Communication and Stepped Reminders Interventions for Lung Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2026Article
- Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Lung cancer screening care pathways in community settings: an examination of 3 healthcare systems.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026Article
- Reframing computed tomography-associated cancer concerns in lifesaving screening: keeping the focus on lives saved.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Review
- Care coordination as the bridge: closing the gaps in lung cancer screening.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026Article
- Beyond centralization: what community lung cancer screening workflows could reveal about the components that matter.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026Article
- Disparities in Lung Cancer Health Outcomes and Access to Lung Cancer Screening Between Rural and Urban Areas in the U.S.Cancers · 2026Review
- Process perspectives on lung cancer screening in primary care: a qualitative study of providers and staff in an urban U.S. healthcare system.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Implementation of a hybrid lung health program for Northeast Texas: study protocol.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Editorial: Advancing diagnostic excellence in early lung cancer detection.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Implementation of a lung cancer screening program at an urban safety-net hospital: enabling solutions via stakeholder engagement.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Identification and management of incidental findings in a Veteran's lung cancer screening program.Respiratory research · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Cuproptosis: a novel therapeutic mechanism in lung cancer.Cancer cell international · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith rising interest in centralized lung cancer screening (LCS), synthesizing evidence to estimate its impact on annual adherence is critical for aligning practice with guideline recommendations. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is participation in a centralized screening program associated with higher adherence rates compared with decentralized programs among individuals with negative baseline LCS results? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsSeven bibliographic databases were searched for cohort studies published following January 1, 2011, reporting adherence outcomes for centralized vs decentralized LCS (primary outcome). Quality appraisal followed the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for appraising observational studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool studies. Meta-regression examined patient- and institution-level characteristics associated with adherence in centralized programs.
resultsTwelve studies involving 17,195 patients with negative baseline results were included in this meta-analysis. The overall pooled adherence rate in centralized programs was 55% (95% CI, 42%-58%; 12 studies, 11,302 patients) with 10 to 18 months of follow-up. Adherence was significantly higher in centralized compared with decentralized screening programs (68.9% vs 37.1%; P < .0001), with a pooled OR of 3.33 (95% CI, 1.92-5.78; 4 studies, 17,195 patients; moderate certainty). Substantial heterogeneity was observed across the 4 studies in the pairwise meta-analysis (I
interpretationOur results indicate that adherence to LCS remains low but is significantly higher in centralized screening programs compared with decentralized ones. Centralization may improve equity by addressing disparities associated with patient- and institution-level characteristics. These study findings support the expansion of centralized approaches and targeted quality improvement efforts to strengthen adherence to guideline-recommended LCS.
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.