The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lung Cancer Screening Utilization: A Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Analysis
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the U.S. The National Lung Screening Trial found that low-dose computed tomography reduced lung cancer mortality in high-risk individuals. As a result, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force began recommending low-dose computed tomography screening for those at a high risk in 2013. Therefore, it is imperative to continually monitor lung cancer screening uptake. The objective of this study was to determine computed tomography screening uptake across ten states using 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey data. METHODS In fall 2018, a cross-sectional analysis was performed on survey data from 4,374 low-dose computed tomography-eligible participants, as determined by Task Force recommendations. Weighted percentages were calculated to assess computed tomography screening utilization overall and by state, sociodemographic, and clinical characteristics; Wald chi-squared tests evaluated group differences. RESULTS Within the study sample, 14.4% of eligible individuals had a computed tomography scan to test for lung cancer within the past 12 months. Significant state-to-state variation was identified (6.5% utilization in Nevada to 18.1% in Florida, p=0.03). Screening utilization was higher among individuals with insurance than among the uninsured (15.2% vs 4.0%, p<0.001), and it was higher among individuals with asthma (22.9% vs 12.9%, p=0.006) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (23.7% vs 8.5%, p<0.001) than among those without either condition. CONCLUSIONS Computed tomography screening utilization was higher than in earlier estimates. However, further research is needed to elucidate geographic variation in screening.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening
The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1102873 · Cited by 11,064
No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons.
Rothman, K. J. (1990) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-199001000-00010 · Cited by 5,965
Cited by
Screening for Lung Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
US Preventive Services Task Force, Krist, A. H., Davidson, K. W., Mangione, C. M., Barry, M. J., Cabana, M., Caughey, A. B., Davis, E. M., Donahue, K. E., Doubeni, C. A., et al. (2021) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2021.1117 · Cited by 1,816
Feasibility of blood testing combined with PET-CT to screen for cancer and guide intervention
Lennon, A. M., Buchanan, A. H., Kinde, I., Warren, A., Honushefsky, A., Cohain, A. T., Ledbetter, D. H., Sanfilippo, F., Sheridan, K., Rosica, D., et al. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abb9601 · Cited by 657
Adams, S. J., Stone, E., Baldwin, D. R., Vliegenthart, R., Lee, P., & Fintelmann, F. J. (2023) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)01694-4 · Cited by 467
Chen, S., & Wu, S. (2022) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-021-01695-4 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Zahnd, W. E., & Eberth, J. M.
- Venue
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-08
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 250-255
- ISSN
- 0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2955242767
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 19.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Lung Cancer Screening Utilization: A Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.015
- The paper
- Zahnd, W. E., & Eberth, J. M. (2019). Lung Cancer Screening Utilization: A Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.015
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.