↓ Skip to main content

Why and how would we implement a lung cancer screening program?

Overview of attention for article published in Public Health Reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Why and how would we implement a lung cancer screening program?
Published in
Public Health Reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40985-015-0010-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Idris Guessous, Jacques Cornuz

Abstract

For decades, lung cancer has been the most common cancer in terms of both incidence and mortality. There has been very little improvement in the prognosis of lung cancer. Early treatment following early diagnosis is considered to have potential for development. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large, well-designed randomized controlled trial, evaluated low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) as a screening tool for lung cancer. Compared with chest X-ray, annual LDCT screening reduced death from lung cancer and overall mortality by 20 and 6.7 %, respectively, in high-risk people aged 55-74 years. Several smaller trials of LDCT screening are under way, but none are sufficiently powered to detect a 20 % reduction in lung cancer death. Thus, it is very unlikely that the NLST results will be replicated. In addition, the NLST raises several issues related to screening, such as the high false-positive rate, overdiagnosis and cost. Healthcare providers and systems are now left with the question of whether the available findings should be translated into practice. We present the main reasons for implementing lung cancer screening in high-risk adults and discuss the main issues related to lung cancer screening. We stress the importance of eligibility criteria, smoking cessation programs, primary care physicians, and informed-decision making should lung cancer screening be implemented. Seven years ago, we were waiting for the results of trials. Such evidence is now available. Similar to almost all other cancer screens, uncertainties exist and persist even after recent scientific efforts and data. We believe that by staying within the characteristics of the original trial and appropriately sharing the evidence as well as the uncertainties, it is reasonable to implement a LDCT lung cancer screening program for smokers and former smokers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Master 13 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Psychology 3 5%
Unspecified 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 20 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Public Health Reviews
#232
of 278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,506
of 296,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health Reviews
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.