ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2025
Structured narrative review on lung cancer screening: current evidence, clinical practice implications and implementation insights from a multidisciplinary task force and patient representatives.
Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- ERS Congress 2025: highlights from the Thoracic Oncology Assembly.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Maintaining momentum: the history and future of lung cancer disparities in the United States.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
54 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLung cancer screening (LCS) is an evolving field with variations in its implementation worldwide. National LCS programmes are limited and preliminary data from national implementation are scarce.
aimAn up-to-date overview of the available literature about 12 LCS-related topics that were identified as priorities by a multidisciplinary task force (TF) panel and patient representatives as well as synthesis of published evidence to inform clinical practice and health decision-making about LCS implementation. In specific areas where the scientific evidence is limited or mixed, the limitations are discussed and best practices based on available evidence are concluded. MATERIALS AND
methodsA multidisciplinary TF expert panel collaborated with patient representatives, identified 12 areas of interest and incorporated patient priorities. A systematic literature search was conducted, followed by screening, review and synthesis of available evidence.
resultsThere is a lack of national LCS programmes in most countries worldwide. LCS benefits and potential risks are well established. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) combined with smoking cessation should be offered as part of a LCS strategy to ensure optimal clinical outcomes. Age and smoking status cut-offs as well as other inclusion criteria vary and should be based on national epidemiological data. Available LCS risk predictor models and biomarkers require further clinical validation prior to implementation across the entire spectrum of LCS candidates. LCS frequency remains controversial with biennial LDCT being supported by current evidence. Technical standards, quality assurance and LCS management protocols are essential in LCS implementation.
conclusionsLCS benefits override potential risks. There is slim evidence for specific cut-off values for inclusion criteria, the optimal duration of LCS programmes and the application of LCS biomarkers in clinical practice. Smoking cessation should be integrated within LCS programmes. Ongoing scientific activity in the area is expected to provide answers in the near future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.