SynthesisMolecular oncology2026
Screening for lung cancer: A systematic review of overdiagnosis and its implications.
Synthesis in Molecular oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Acute Infection: A Conceptual Framework Linking Zoonotic Bacterial Pathogens to Pulmonary Fibrosis and Lung Carcinogenesis.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- European Code Against Cancer 5th edition: 14 ways you can help prevent cancer.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Review
- European Code Against Cancer, 5th edition - organised cancer screening programmes.Molecular oncology · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening is increasingly used for early lung cancer detection targeted to high-risk populations. Quantifying overdiagnosis, its potential harms, and economic consequences is important. We assessed the magnitude, harms, and economic impact of lung cancer overdiagnosis from LDCT screening in high-risk populations. We synthesized evidence from eight randomized trials involving 84,660 participants. LDCT may increase overdiagnosis compared to no screening (relative risk [RR] 1.05; 222 additional cases per 100 000 people screened; low certainty). Compared to chest x-ray (CXR), LDCT likely slightly increases overdiagnosis (RR 1.01; 63 additional cases per 100 000 people screened; moderate certainty). The proportion of overdiagnosed cancers is 0.07 (7000 more lung cancers overdiagnosed per 100 000 lung cancers detected; low certainty) when compared to no screening, and 0.01 compared to CXR (1000 more lung cancers overdiagnosed per 100 000 lung cancers detected; moderate certainty). In terms of cost, LDCT resulted in an additional societal burden of €2,026,422.00 per 100 000 individuals screened compared to no screening. The magnitude of overdiagnosis in LDCT screening is likely low compared to CXR.
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.