ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
Recommendations for the development of an integrated lung cancer care process: an expert consensus report.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify key aspects of the lung cancer care process and generate prioritised recommendations to optimise coordination, quality, and equitable access to diagnosis and treatment.
methods24 experts from the National Advisory Committee of the Lung Ambition Alliance in Spain participated in a structured consensus process using an adapted RAND/UCLA method. The process comprised three phases: literature review (Phase I), identification of key issues (Phase II, n = 21), and prioritisation of recommendations (Phase III, n = 24). Each recommendation was scored for impact and feasibility on a 1-9 Likert scale. Agreement was defined when ≥ 66.6% of experts rated within the same range as the median; disagreement when ≥ 33.3% scored in both the 1-3 and 7-9 ranges; other cases were considered indeterminate.
resultsA total of 76 recommendations addressing 34 key aspects were identified (66% related to humanisation and perceived care quality and 34% to coordination and continuity). From which, 62 achieved agreement for impact and 14 were indeterminate; regarding feasibility, 10 reached agreement, 2 met disagreement criteria and 64 were indeterminate. In this regard, 17 high-priority recommendations (high impact and feasibility) were prioritised, covering prevention, access to diagnosis and treatment, standardisation of care processes and communication with patients. In addition, 29 recommendations were classified as high impact, relating to information systems, care coordination, prevention and awareness, equity in access to diagnostic tests and treatment, and patient care and safety.
conclusionsImplementing these recommendations is essential to enhance equity, coordination, and quality of lung cancer care, requiring a nationwide, multi-stakeholder effort to advance towards an integrated and patient-centred model.
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.