ArticleInternational journal of cancer2026
Impact of lung cancer screening eligibility criteria on participants' characteristics and healthcare resources.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Selection criteria for lung cancer screening (LCS) are essential for implementing resource- and cost-efficient programs. However, different selection criteria may have similar resource requirements but select dissimilar individuals. This study explores the impact of inclusion criteria on participants' characteristics and health services in Spain. A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from 21,007 individuals from the 2012 Spanish National Health Survey. LCS eligibility was evaluated for four criteria: two from the 4-IN-THE-LUNG-RUN trial (4ITLR1: ages 60-79, 35 pack-years, current smokers or <10 years since cessation; 4ITLR2: ages 60-79, PLCOm2012noRace risk ≥2.6%), the United Kingdom's Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC: ages 55-74, PLCOm2012noRace risk ≥1.51%), and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF: ages 50-80, 20 pack-years, current smokers or <15 years since cessation). Under the most restrictive (4ITLR1) 5.6% of ages 50-80 were eligible, requiring 9.0% additional radiological capacity. Under the broadest (USPSTF) 21.6% of ages 50-80 were eligible, requiring 34.2% additional capacity. All criteria primarily selected men (68.1-82.2% of eligibles). Most criteria favored selecting former smokers (49.4-56.9%). However, eligible women were more often current smokers than men across all criteria (men: 38.5-46.8%, women: 52.7-66.5%). Former smokers smoked more cigarettes per day than current smokers (30 vs. 20) despite having shorter smoking durations, resulting in higher median pack-years across all criteria (range: 44-66). Overall, pack-year-based eligibility decreased with age, while risk-based eligibility was stable across age groups. Different LCS criteria yield populations with highly varied characteristics. Risk-based criteria may provide more equitable eligibility across age groups.
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.