ReviewCurrent opinion in pulmonary medicine2026
Improving lung cancer screening diagnostic efficiency.
Review in Current opinion in pulmonary 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.
- Article
- Editorial: Advancing diagnostic excellence in early lung cancer detection.Frontiers in oncology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewWe discuss opportunities to improve lung cancer screening (LCS) diagnostic efficiency, which necessitates simultaneous focus on both diagnosis of early-stage lung cancer and reduction of diagnostic errors during diagnostic evaluation. RECENT
findingsRecent efforts have focused on three distinct targets for improving LCS diagnostic efficiency: Eligibility and uptake, Adherence to annual screening, and Diagnostic evaluation of concerning findings. There has been ongoing debate regarding who should be screened and how to consider lung cancer risk factors, even as LCS uptake remains suboptimal. LCS annual adherence has emerged as an important quality metric, as it is associated with increased early-stage lung cancer detection. Finally, optimization of the diagnostic pathway once concerning findings are identified via LCS is necessary to minimize exposing those without cancer to the harms of invasive diagnostic testing. Efforts to improve pulmonary nodule risk assessment, the nonmalignant resection rate, and lung cancer overdiagnosis will be crucial. SUMMARY: Improving LCS diagnostic efficiency requires a careful balance between prioritizing lung cancer sensitivity (i.e., ability to diagnose early-stage lung cancers) and avoiding both false negatives (i.e., failure to diagnose an early-stage lung cancer) and false positives (i.e., unnecessary performance of invasive testing for benign lesions).
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.