Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42009868›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2026

Recruitment strategies and outcomes in lung cancer screening programmes: a scoping review.

Olivera Djuric, Francesco Venturelli, Maria Chiara Bassi, Giuseppe Gorini, Eugenio Paci, Paola Mantellini, Paolo Giorgi Rossi

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Lung cancer screening in Lithuania: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026
    Article
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

7 authors.

Olivera DjuricEpidemiology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy. olivera.duric@ausl.re.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8574-5938
Francesco VenturelliEpidemiology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Maria Chiara BassiScientific Library, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Giuseppe GoriniDivision of Epidemiology and Clinical Governance, Institute for Study, Prevention and Network in Oncology (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.
Eugenio PaciItalian League against Cancer (LILT), Florence, Italy.
Paola MantelliniDivision of Screening, Institute for Study, Prevention and Network in Oncology (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.
Paolo Giorgi RossiEpidemiology Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Funding

Ministero della Salute 2026Ministero della Salute n.314/2019Regione Toscana n.213/2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentification and recruitment of people at risk represents a crucial step in implementing large-scale lung cancer screening (LCS) programs.

objectivesWe systematically reviewed the evidence to identify the best recruitment strategies, in terms of identification, outreach, and invitation of the population at risk to low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)-based lung cancer screening programs. The secondary aim was to quantify and compare their performance in terms of test coverage of the target population. MATERIALS AND

methodsA nested systematic review was conducted searching in Medline (PubMed version), Embase, CINAHL (Ebsco version), Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, Clinicaltrial.gov and WHO register for studies published from January 2000 to March 2023. The main recruitment and risk assessment patterns were identified, and recruitment outcomes were calculated (e.g., test coverage, risk assessment rate, and participation rate).

resultsOf 6075 identified references, 79 studies that describe 56 LCS programs were included in the analysis. Screening coverage ranged from 4.8% in the 'volunteers' pattern and 6.7% in the referral-based pattern to 35-40% in the population-based LCS programs. Participation rates were quite low in targeted programs (8.4-55.9%) despite high risk assessment rates, and it was variable in referral-based programs (30.9-92.5%). Participation rates in underserved populations ranged from 31% to 92% and depended on the interventions implemented to reach and retain them in the screening process.

conclusionNo program reached high test coverage. Strategies that resulted successful in reaching the target population had low participation and vice versa. Population-based programs were more effective in covering at-risk individuals. Interventions to retain eligible participants in the screening process are needed. KEY POINTS: Question What are the best recruitment strategies of the population at risk in lung cancer screening programs, in terms of screening coverage and participation rates? Findings Test coverage is the highest in the population-based lung cancer screening programs (35-40%) and the lowest in self-referral (6.7%) or referral-based programs (4.8%). Clinical relevance There is a need to assess the effectiveness of interventions to increase participation and to decrease disengagement throughout the screening process. A joint approach from provider to patient level should be considered to increase lung cancer screening participation.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsMass ScreeningPatient SelectionTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansRisk AssessmentEarly detection of cancerLow-dose CTLung cancerMass screeningPatient participation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.