SynthesisAmerican journal of preventive medicine2025
Time to Benefit for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Survival Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in American journal of preventive medicine, 2025. 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.
- [Implementation of a national lung cancer screening in Austria : Position paper of the Austrian Radiological Society (ÖRG), the Austrian Society of Pneumology (ÖGP), the Austrian Society of General Practice and Family Medicine (ÖGAM) and the Austrian Society of Thoracic Surgery (ÖGTC)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- Geospatial Analysis of Accredited Lung Cancer Screening Facilities in Florida Reveals Suboptimal Alignment with High-Risk Populations.Cancer research communications · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality in the long term but carries immediate risks. Guidelines recommend screening persons whose life expectancy exceeds the screening test's time to benefit, defined as the time from screening initiation to first observed benefit. This study aimed to estimate the time to benefit for lung cancer screening to prevent lung cancer mortality.
methodsRandomized controlled trials of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography were identified from two prior systematic reviews and an updated search to December 3, 2023. Studies that reported lung cancer mortality were included. For each study, independent Weibull survival curves were fitted and Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations were generated to estimate the absolute risk reduction at different time points. Time to benefit was determined as the time at which absolute risk reduction thresholds (ARR=0.0005, 0.001, 0.002) were crossed. These estimates were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis model.
resultsA total of eight randomized controlled trials comprising 88,526 participants were included. Enrollment age ranged from age 50 to 70 years; follow-up duration ranged from 7.3 to 12.3 years. For every 1,000 persons screened, 3.4 years (95%=CI 2.2, 5.1) passed before 1 death from lung cancer was prevented (ARR=0.001). The time to prevent one lung cancer death per 2,000 persons screened (ARR=0.0005) was 2.2 years (95% CI=1.4, 3.4); per 500 persons screened (ARR=0.002), it was 5.2 years (95%=CI 3.7, 7.3). DISCUSSION: Lung cancer screening is most appropriate for older adults at high risk of lung cancer with a life expectancy greater than 3.4 years.
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.