ArticleCHEST pulmonary2026
Association of Patient and Neighborhood Factors With Lung Cancer Screening Rates in Minnesota.
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths. Despite the known benefits of lung cancer screening, it is estimated to have low population uptake due to a variety of factors. We sought to estimate lung cancer screening rates in a large health system in Minnesota and study the factors affecting completion. Research Question: What are the rates of lung cancer screening chest CT scan ordered and completed in eligible populations in Minnesota's large integrated health system and its association with various socioeconomic factors? Study Design and Methods: We extracted records of patients likely eligible for lung cancer screening based on age and smoking history and determined their screening completion rates. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations. ORs and 95% CIs were calculated and evaluated at Results: Approximately 37% of patients with a smoking history were eligible for lung cancer screening. Approximately 12% of these patients had any CT chest scan completed, with only 7.2% being a screening-intent low-dose CT (LDCT) scan. The odds of screening were more strongly associated with age, smoking status, and gender than state Area Deprivation Index decile. Patients who previously smoked had twice the odds of having an LDCT scan order and greater odds of completion. People ≥ 65 years of age were more likely to have an order and completion than younger patients. Men had slightly lower odds of having an LDCT scan order than women, but they had greater odds of completion. Interpretation: Our results suggest that the uptake of lung cancer screening continues to be low. Older patients, male individuals, and those who quit smoking were shown to be more likely to have a screening LDCT scan completed with no significant effect of state Area Deprivation Index decile.
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.