Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41909941›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2026

Considering research waste in economic evaluations of low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer.

Jaime L Peters, Tristan Snowsill, Sophie Robinson, Edward Griffin, Christopher Hyde

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jaime L PetersExeter Test Group, Department of Health and Community Sciences, https://ror.org/03yghzc09University of Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1778-3518
Tristan SnowsillHealth Economics Group, Department of Health and Community Sciences, https://ror.org/03yghzc09University of Exeter, UK.
Sophie RobinsonPenTAG, Department of Public Health and Sport Sciences, https://ror.org/03yghzc09University of Exeter, UK.
Edward GriffinAssociate of the Exeter Test Group, Department of Health and Community Sciences, https://ror.org/03yghzc09University of Exeter, UK.
Christopher HydeExeter Test Group, Department of Health and Community Sciences, https://ror.org/03yghzc09University of Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7349-0616

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the ongoing discussion around the implementation of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer, increasing numbers of model-based economic evaluations have been conducted. We systematically reviewed the published literature for economic evaluations of LDCT screening for lung cancer in people at high risk, updating this review in 2024. We identified a total of 57 economic evaluations; two-thirds of which developed

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansRadiation Dosageaccess to informationcost–benefit analysisearly detection of cancerlung neoplasmsTomographyX-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID41909941
PMCPMC13161929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.