ArticleBMJ open2026
Pilot feasibility study to deliver low-dose CT lung cancer screening in Scotland: descriptive findings from the LungScot study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the feasibility and acceptability of delivering risk-stratified low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening across diverse geographical and socioeconomic settings in Scotland and to characterise uptake, participant profile and screening outcomes.
designProspective, multicentre pilot feasibility study with descriptive analysis.
settingPrimary and secondary care interface across four regional Health Boards in Scotland, encompassing urban, rural, remote and socioeconomically deprived populations.
participants2801 individuals aged 50-74 years, identified from primary care electronic medical records (EMRs), with a history of smoking were invited (current or within 15 years where available); 668 (23.8%) responded. Of 608 assessed for eligibility (50.8% female; median age 63 years), 503 (82.7%) met at least one predefined high-risk criterion.
interventionsInvitation to a lung health check, followed by telephone-based risk assessment using US Preventative Services Task Force, Liverpool Lung Pathway version 2 and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Screening Trial criteria. High-risk participants were offered a one-off LDCT scan at local centres. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: feasibility indicators including uptake, risk eligibility and scan completion. Secondary: prevalence of lung cancer, pulmonary nodules and incidental findings (eg, coronary artery disease, emphysema).
resultsResponse rate was 23.8% (668/2801), varying from 17.8% to 38.1% across practices and lower in more deprived areas. Of 503 eligible participants, 436 (86.7%) underwent LDCT. Abnormal findings were present in 83.3% of scans. Lung nodules were detected in 25.7% (112/436), with 11.8% requiring follow-up. Lung cancer was diagnosed in 1.15% (5/436; 95%), alongside five additional malignancies. Coronary artery disease was identified in 56.4% (246/436) and emphysema in 33% (144/436). Non-responders were more likely to be current smokers (69.3% vs 49.8%).
conclusionsRecruitment of people for lung cancer screening using the smoking history recorded in their primary care EMR is feasible. This approach identifies a high-risk population with a high burden of both malignant and non-malignant disease, and with substantial undiagnosed disease burden. However, uptake was modest and socially patterned, highlighting the need for equity-focused implementation strategies, including repeated invitations and targeted engagement. These findings are particularly relevant as Scotland considers implementation of a national lung cancer screening programme within a health system characterised by marked geographical and socioeconomic inequalities. Further research should evaluate long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness and strategies to improve equitable participation.
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.