ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Assessment of ad hoc lung cancer screening at a safety net hospital.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality among patients who meet screening criteria. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate patient characteristics and eligibility among patients referred by primary care and pulmonary providers for LDCT at a safety net hospital in San Francisco, which does not have a formal LCS program. Methods: We extracted demographic and clinical data from individuals who had undergone LDCT between 2019 and 2023 (n=400), and from individuals referred for evaluation of suspicious pulmonary nodules between 2023 and 2024 (n=20). Results: Of the 400 patients who underwent LDCT, only 47.5% (n=190) had documentation supporting LCS eligibility at the time of chart review. Two lung cancers, both stage 1, were identified in those that met screening criteria; none were diagnosed among those that did not meet screening criteria. Among the 20 patients referred for pulmonary nodule evaluation, 15 met the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for LDCT LCS, but only eight had previously undergone LCS. Conclusions: The absence of a formal LCS program led to high rates of unnecessary screening for lung cancer and underutilization among those that could benefit from it. Of those that met screening criteria, the number needed to screen was 95 to detect one lung cancer, comparable to published data and highlighting the potential utility of an LCS program.
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.