SynthesisNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2026
Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening: insights from risk stratification, guidelines, and emerging technologies-a systematic review.
Synthesis in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2026. 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
- Artificial intelligence in thoracic surgery: a narrative review of clinical advances and applications in 2025.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with most patients diagnosed at advanced stages. Early detection through screening can significantly reduce mortality, making cost-effectiveness evidence crucial for guiding policy decisions. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening across various modalities, populations, and settings. A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted for studies up to March 18, 2025, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. A total of 79 studies from 21 countries were included, with model-based analyses prevalent and 89.9% rated as high quality. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) emerged as the primary screening modality, although evidence on artificial intelligence (AI) and biomarkers is limited. Fourteen studies comparing LDCT with no screening showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from $8376 to $200,921 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Notably, 90.3% of LDCT strategies were cost-effective by national thresholds, particularly in older adults and high-risk groups. Biennial screening often proved more cost-effective than annual in many scenarios. Overall, LDCT screening demonstrated favorable cost-effectiveness, necessitating further evaluation for emerging technologies in underserved regions.
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.