Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42064324›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2026

The landscape of lung cancer screening globally: a comparison of established programs and estimates of eligibility to participate.

Hannah Jongebloed, Lan Gao, Hua-Hie Yong, Patricia M Livingston, Victoria M White, Coral E Gartner, Geoffrey T Fong, Andrew Hyland, Katherine A East, Krzysztof Przewozniak and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

14 authors.

Hannah JongebloedInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Lan GaoDeakin Health Economics, Institute of Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Hua-Hie YongSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Patricia M LivingstonInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Victoria M WhiteSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Coral E GartnerNHMRC Centre of Research Excellence on Achieving the Tobacco Endgame, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Geoffrey T FongDepartment of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Andrew HylandDepartment of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Katherine A EastDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Brighton and University of Sussex, Brighton, Sussex, UK.
Krzysztof PrzewozniakGlobal Institute of Family Health, University of Kalisz, Kalisz, Poland.
Hong Gwan SeoDepartment of Disease Screening, Design Hospital, Jeonju-si, Jeonbuk-do, Republic of Korea.
Yeol KimDepartment of Family Medicine, National Cancer Center, Goyang-si, Republic of Korea.
Vivienne MilchCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Anna UgaldeInstitute for Health Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comparing lung cancer screening programs worldwide provides insight into the most utilised screening approaches and variations in program eligibility. This study compared the eligibility criteria and parameters for lung cancer screening programs internationally and modelled the reach of each program. Eleven countries with implemented, organised, national or regional lung cancer screening programs were identified; eight (73%) utilised pack-years to measure smoking intensity, with four countries adopting 30-pack-years as a requirement. Three programs (27%) utilised risk prediction models to determine eligibility. Proportions of eligible people who currently smoke range from 10.7% to 27.8%, with the fewest in the Republic of Korea (10.7%) and most in the United States (27.8%). Globally, lung cancer screening eligibility criteria and program parameters vary substantially. There was limited consideration for engaging key population groups. Ensuring programs incorporate relevant local strategies to maximise participation across at-risk groups is essential, especially for those underrepresented in screening programs.

Indexed as

Cancer screeningEarly detection of cancerHealth equityInternational comparisonLung cancer screeningMass screeningPolicy auditScreening eligibility

Identifiers

PMID42064324
PMCPMC13125157

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.