Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

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

Zahnd, Whitney E., Eberth, Jan M.·2019·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.015

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 191

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.