Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Lung Cancer | Protocol

Screening for lung cancer with computed tomography: protocol for systematic reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

Authors: Jennifer Pillay, Sholeh Rahman, Scott Klarenbach, Donna L. Reynolds, Laure A. Tessier, Guylène Thériault, Nav Persaud, Christian Finley, Natasha Leighl, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Chantelle Garritty, Gregory Traversy, Maria Tan, Lisa Hartling

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada, and because early cancers are often asymptomatic screening aims to prevent mortality by detecting cancer earlier when treatment is more likely to be curative. These reviews will inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for lung cancer.

Methods

We will update the review on the benefits and harms of screening with CT conducted for the task force in 2015 and perform de novo reviews on the comparative effects between (i) trial-based selection criteria and use of risk prediction models and (ii) trial-based nodule classification and different nodule classification systems and on patients’ values and preferences. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (for questions on benefits and harms from 2015; comparative effects from 2012) and Medline, Scopus, and EconLit (for values and preferences from 2012) via peer-reviewed search strategies, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. Two reviewers will screen all citations (including those in the previous review) and base inclusion decisions on consensus or arbitration by another reviewer. For benefits (i.e., all-cause and cancer-specific mortality and health-related quality of life) and harms (i.e., overdiagnosis, false positives, incidental findings, psychosocial harms from screening, and major complications and mortality from invasive procedures as a result of screening), we will include studies of adults in whom lung cancer is not suspected. We will include randomized controlled trials comparing CT screening with no screening or alternative screening modalities (e.g., chest radiography) or strategies (e.g., CT using different screening intervals, classification systems, and/or patient selection via risk models or biomarkers); non-randomized studies, including modeling studies, will be included for the comparative effects between trial-based and other selection criteria or nodule classification methods. For harms (except overdiagnosis) we will also include non-randomized and uncontrolled studies. For values and preferences, the study design may be any quantitative design that either directly or indirectly measures outcome preferences on outcomes pertaining to lung cancer screening. We will only include studies conducted in Very High Human Development Countries and having full texts in English or French. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another, with the exception of result data on mortality and cancer incidence (for calculating overdiagnosis) where duplicate extraction will occur. If two or more studies report on the same comparison and it is deemed suitable, we will pool continuous data using a mean difference or standardized mean difference, as applicable, and binary data using relative risks and a DerSimonian and Laird model unless events are rare (< 1%) where we will pool odds ratios using Peto’s method or (if zero events) the reciprocal of the opposite treatment arm size correction. For pooling proportions, we will apply suitable transformation (logit or arcsine) depending on the proportions of events. If meta-analysis is not undertaken we will synthesize the data descriptively, considering clinical and methodological differences. For each outcome, two reviewers will independently assess within- and across-study risk of bias and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), and reach consensus.

Discussion

Since 2015, additional trials and longer follow-ups or additional data (e.g., harms, specific patient populations) from previously published trials have been published that will improve our understanding of the benefits and harms of screening. The systematic review of values and preferences will allow fulsome insights that will inform the balance of benefits and harms.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42022378858
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
6.
go back to reference Sam D, Cheung WY. A population-level comparison of cancer-related and non-cancer-related health care costs using publicly available provincial administrative data. Curr Oncol. 2019;26(2):94–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Sam D, Cheung WY. A population-level comparison of cancer-related and non-cancer-related health care costs using publicly available provincial administrative data. Curr Oncol. 2019;26(2):94–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Iragorri N, de Oliveira C, Fitzgerald N, Essue B. The indirect cost burden of cancer care in Canada: a systematic literature review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(3):325–41.PubMedCrossRef Iragorri N, de Oliveira C, Fitzgerald N, Essue B. The indirect cost burden of cancer care in Canada: a systematic literature review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(3):325–41.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Krueger H, Andres EN, Koot JM, Reilly BD. The economic burden of cancers attributable to tobacco smoking, excess weight, alcohol use, and physical inactivity in Canada. Curr Oncol. 2016;23(4):241–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Krueger H, Andres EN, Koot JM, Reilly BD. The economic burden of cancers attributable to tobacco smoking, excess weight, alcohol use, and physical inactivity in Canada. Curr Oncol. 2016;23(4):241–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Poirier AE, Ruan Y, Volesky KD, King WD, O’Sullivan DE, Gogna P, et al. The current and future burden of cancer attributable to modifiable risk factors in Canada: summary of results. Prev Med. 2019;122:140–7.PubMedCrossRef Poirier AE, Ruan Y, Volesky KD, King WD, O’Sullivan DE, Gogna P, et al. The current and future burden of cancer attributable to modifiable risk factors in Canada: summary of results. Prev Med. 2019;122:140–7.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Labrèche F, Kim J, Song C, Pahwa M, Ge CB, Arrandale VH, et al. The current burden of cancer attributable to occupational exposures in Canada. Prev Med. 2019;122:128–39.PubMedCrossRef Labrèche F, Kim J, Song C, Pahwa M, Ge CB, Arrandale VH, et al. The current burden of cancer attributable to occupational exposures in Canada. Prev Med. 2019;122:128–39.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ibrahim EM, Kazkaz GA, Abouelkhair KM, Al-Mansour MM, Al-Fayea TM, Al-Foheidi M, et al. Increased risk of second lung cancer in Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivors: a meta-analysis. Lung. 2013;191(1):117–34.PubMedCrossRef Ibrahim EM, Kazkaz GA, Abouelkhair KM, Al-Mansour MM, Al-Fayea TM, Al-Foheidi M, et al. Increased risk of second lung cancer in Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivors: a meta-analysis. Lung. 2013;191(1):117–34.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Grantzau T, Overgaard J. Risk of second non-breast cancer after radiotherapy for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 762,468 patients. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114(1):56–65.PubMedCrossRef Grantzau T, Overgaard J. Risk of second non-breast cancer after radiotherapy for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 762,468 patients. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114(1):56–65.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Kewayosh A, Marrett L, Aslam U, Steiner R, Moy Lum-Kwong M, Imre J, et al. Improving health equity for First Nations, Inuit and Métis people: Ontario’s Aboriginal cancer strategy II. Healthc Q. 2015;17:33–40.PubMedCrossRef Kewayosh A, Marrett L, Aslam U, Steiner R, Moy Lum-Kwong M, Imre J, et al. Improving health equity for First Nations, Inuit and Métis people: Ontario’s Aboriginal cancer strategy II. Healthc Q. 2015;17:33–40.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Hutchinson P, Tobi P, Muirhead A, Robsinson N. Closing the gaps in cancer screening with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis populations: a narrative literature review. J Indig Wellbeing. 2018;3(1):3–17. Hutchinson P, Tobi P, Muirhead A, Robsinson N. Closing the gaps in cancer screening with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis populations: a narrative literature review. J Indig Wellbeing. 2018;3(1):3–17.
20.
go back to reference Tammemägi MC, Katki HA, Hocking WG, Church TR, Caporaso N, Kvale PA, et al. Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(8):728–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Tammemägi MC, Katki HA, Hocking WG, Church TR, Caporaso N, Kvale PA, et al. Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(8):728–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Jonas DE, Reuland DS, Reddy SM, Nagle M, Clark SD, Weber RP, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: an evidence review for the US preventive services task force. Rockville MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021.CrossRef Jonas DE, Reuland DS, Reddy SM, Nagle M, Clark SD, Weber RP, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: an evidence review for the US preventive services task force. Rockville MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Ellison LF. Progress in net cancer survival in Canada over 20 years. Health Rep. 2018;29(9):10–8.PubMed Ellison LF. Progress in net cancer survival in Canada over 20 years. Health Rep. 2018;29(9):10–8.PubMed
25.
go back to reference Koskinen A, Hemminki O, Försti A, Hemminki K. Incidence and survival in laryngeal and lung cancers in Finland and Sweden through a half century. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(5): e0268922.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Koskinen A, Hemminki O, Försti A, Hemminki K. Incidence and survival in laryngeal and lung cancers in Finland and Sweden through a half century. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(5): e0268922.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33.PubMedCrossRef Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7–33.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409.CrossRef National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Oken MM, Hocking WG, Kvale PA, Andriole GL, Buys SS, Church TR, et al. Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;306(17):1865–73.PubMedCrossRef Oken MM, Hocking WG, Kvale PA, Andriole GL, Buys SS, Church TR, et al. Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;306(17):1865–73.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Brodersen J, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Overdiagnosis: how cancer screening can turn indolent pathology into illness. APMIS. 2014;122(8):683–9.PubMedCrossRef Brodersen J, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Overdiagnosis: how cancer screening can turn indolent pathology into illness. APMIS. 2014;122(8):683–9.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, Heuvelmans MA, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):503–13.PubMedCrossRef de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, Heuvelmans MA, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):503–13.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Tremblay A, Taghizadeh N, MacGregor JH, Armstrong G, Bristow MS, Guo LLQ, et al. Application of lung-screening reporting and data system versus pan-Canadian early detection of lung cancer nodule risk calculation in the Alberta lung cancer screening study. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(10):1425–32.PubMedCrossRef Tremblay A, Taghizadeh N, MacGregor JH, Armstrong G, Bristow MS, Guo LLQ, et al. Application of lung-screening reporting and data system versus pan-Canadian early detection of lung cancer nodule risk calculation in the Alberta lung cancer screening study. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(10):1425–32.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Winkler Wille MM, van Riel SJ, Saghir Z, Dirksen A, Pedersen JH, Jacobs C, et al. Predictive accuracy of the PanCan lung cancer risk prediction model - external validation based on CT from the Danish lung cancer screening trial. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(10):3093–9.PubMedCrossRef Winkler Wille MM, van Riel SJ, Saghir Z, Dirksen A, Pedersen JH, Jacobs C, et al. Predictive accuracy of the PanCan lung cancer risk prediction model - external validation based on CT from the Danish lung cancer screening trial. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(10):3093–9.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Tammemägi MC, Church TR, Hocking WG, Silvestri GA, Kvale PA, Riley TL, et al. Evaluation of the lung cancer risks at which to screen ever- and never-smokers: screening rules applied to the PLCO and NLST cohorts. PLoS Med. 2014;11(12): e1001764.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Tammemägi MC, Church TR, Hocking WG, Silvestri GA, Kvale PA, Riley TL, et al. Evaluation of the lung cancer risks at which to screen ever- and never-smokers: screening rules applied to the PLCO and NLST cohorts. PLoS Med. 2014;11(12): e1001764.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Seijo LM, Peled N, Ajona D, Boeri M, Field JK, Sozzi G, et al. Biomarkers in lung cancer screening: achievements, promises, and challenges. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(3):343–57.PubMedCrossRef Seijo LM, Peled N, Ajona D, Boeri M, Field JK, Sozzi G, et al. Biomarkers in lung cancer screening: achievements, promises, and challenges. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(3):343–57.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Sullivan FM, Mair FS, Anderson W, Armory P, Briggs A, Chew C, et al. Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer in a randomised trial of an autoantibody blood test followed by imaging. Eur Respir J. 2020;57(1):2000670. Sullivan FM, Mair FS, Anderson W, Armory P, Briggs A, Chew C, et al. Earlier diagnosis of lung cancer in a randomised trial of an autoantibody blood test followed by imaging. Eur Respir J. 2020;57(1):2000670.
43.
go back to reference Zhang Y, Alonso-Coello P, Guyatt GH, Yepes-Nunez JJ, Akl EA, Hazlewood G, et al. GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences - risk of bias and indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:94–104.PubMedCrossRef Zhang Y, Alonso-Coello P, Guyatt GH, Yepes-Nunez JJ, Akl EA, Hazlewood G, et al. GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences - risk of bias and indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:94–104.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Zhang Y, Coello PA, Brozek J, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Akl EA, et al. Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Zhang Y, Coello PA, Brozek J, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Akl EA, et al. Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Zhang Y, Coello PA, Guyatt GH, Yepes-Nunez JJ, Akl EA, Hazlewood G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences -inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:83–93.PubMedCrossRef Zhang Y, Coello PA, Guyatt GH, Yepes-Nunez JJ, Akl EA, Hazlewood G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 20. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences -inconsistency, imprecision, and other domains. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:83–93.PubMedCrossRef
47.
48.
go back to reference National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Lung cancer incidence and mortality with extended follow-up in the national lung screening trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(10):1732–42.CrossRef National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Lung cancer incidence and mortality with extended follow-up in the national lung screening trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2019;14(10):1732–42.CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Brain K, Lifford KJ, Carter B, Burke O, McRonald F, Devaraj A, et al. Long-term psychosocial outcomes of low-dose CT screening: results of the UK lung cancer screening randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2016;71(11):996–1005.PubMedCrossRef Brain K, Lifford KJ, Carter B, Burke O, McRonald F, Devaraj A, et al. Long-term psychosocial outcomes of low-dose CT screening: results of the UK lung cancer screening randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2016;71(11):996–1005.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Usman Ali M, Miller J, Peirson L, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Kenny M, Sherifali D, et al. Screening for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2016;89:301–14.PubMedCrossRef Usman Ali M, Miller J, Peirson L, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Kenny M, Sherifali D, et al. Screening for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2016;89:301–14.PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349: g7647.CrossRef Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349: g7647.CrossRef
53.
go back to reference Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358: j4008.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358: j4008.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
go back to reference Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395–400.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395–400.PubMedCrossRef
58.
go back to reference Brodersen J, Voss T, Martiny F, Siersma V, Barratt A, Heleno B. Overdiagnosis of lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography screening: meta-analysis of the randomised clinical trials. Breathe (Sheff). 2020;16(1): 200013.PubMedCrossRef Brodersen J, Voss T, Martiny F, Siersma V, Barratt A, Heleno B. Overdiagnosis of lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography screening: meta-analysis of the randomised clinical trials. Breathe (Sheff). 2020;16(1): 200013.PubMedCrossRef
60.
go back to reference Jonas DE, Reuland DS, Reddy SM, Nagle M, Clark SD, Weber RP, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325(10):971–87.PubMedCrossRef Jonas DE, Reuland DS, Reddy SM, Nagle M, Clark SD, Weber RP, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;325(10):971–87.PubMedCrossRef
61.
go back to reference McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.PubMedCrossRef McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6.PubMedCrossRef
62.
go back to reference Follmann D, Elliott P, Suh I, Cutler J. Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(7):769–73.PubMedCrossRef Follmann D, Elliott P, Suh I, Cutler J. Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(7):769–73.PubMedCrossRef
63.
go back to reference Blom EF, Haaf KT, de Koning HJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of community-and choice- based health state utility values for lung cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(11):1187–200.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Blom EF, Haaf KT, de Koning HJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of community-and choice- based health state utility values for lung cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(11):1187–200.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
64.
go back to reference Flemyng E, Moore TH, Boutron I, Higgins JP, Hróbjartsson A, Nejstgaard CH, et al. Using Risk of Bias 2 to assess results from randomised controlled trials: guidance from Cochrane. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023;28(4):260–6.PubMedCrossRef Flemyng E, Moore TH, Boutron I, Higgins JP, Hróbjartsson A, Nejstgaard CH, et al. Using Risk of Bias 2 to assess results from randomised controlled trials: guidance from Cochrane. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023;28(4):260–6.PubMedCrossRef
66.
go back to reference Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, Shamliyan T, Sedrakyan A, Wilt TJ, et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health care program. In: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; 2010. Available from: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/. Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, Shamliyan T, Sedrakyan A, Wilt TJ, et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health care program. In: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; 2010. Available from: http://​effectivehealthc​are.​ahrq.​gov/​.
67.
go back to reference da Costa BR, Juni P. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(47):3336–45.PubMedCrossRef da Costa BR, Juni P. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(47):3336–45.PubMedCrossRef
68.
go back to reference Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis-a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2(3):188–203.PubMedCrossRef Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. Pooling health-related quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis-a tutorial and review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2(3):188–203.PubMedCrossRef
69.
go back to reference Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T. Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67(11):974–8.PubMedCrossRef Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T. Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67(11):974–8.PubMedCrossRef
70.
go back to reference Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. 2006;1: b92. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. 2006;1: b92.
71.
go back to reference Higgins JPT, Eldridge S, Li T. Chapter 23: Including variants on randomized trials. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4. Cochrane; 2023. Available at: https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 12 Mar 2024. Higgins JPT, Eldridge S, Li T. Chapter 23: Including variants on randomized trials. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4. Cochrane; 2023. Available at: https://​www.​training.​cochrane.​org/​handbook. Accessed 12 Mar 2024.
72.
go back to reference Rao JN, Scott AJ. A simple method for the analysis of clustered binary data. Biometrics. 1992;48(2):577–85.PubMedCrossRef Rao JN, Scott AJ. A simple method for the analysis of clustered binary data. Biometrics. 1992;48(2):577–85.PubMedCrossRef
73.
go back to reference Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 10. Analyzing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4. Cochrane; 2023. Available at: https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 12 Mar 2024. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 10. Analyzing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4. Cochrane; 2023. Available at: https://​www.​training.​cochrane.​org/​handbook. Accessed 12 Mar 2024.
75.
go back to reference Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med. 2006;25(20):3443–57.MathSciNetPubMedCrossRef Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med. 2006;25(20):3443–57.MathSciNetPubMedCrossRef
76.
go back to reference Zeng L, Brignardello-Petersen R, Hultcrantz M, Siemieniuk RAC, Santesso N, Traversy G, et al. GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;137:163–75.PubMedCrossRef Zeng L, Brignardello-Petersen R, Hultcrantz M, Siemieniuk RAC, Santesso N, Traversy G, et al. GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;137:163–75.PubMedCrossRef
77.
go back to reference Murad MH, Mustafa RA, Schunemann HJ, Sultan S, Santesso N. Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect. Evid Based Med. 2017;22(3):85–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Murad MH, Mustafa RA, Schunemann HJ, Sultan S, Santesso N. Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect. Evid Based Med. 2017;22(3):85–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
78.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1311–6.PubMedCrossRef Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1311–6.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Screening for lung cancer with computed tomography: protocol for systematic reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
Authors
Jennifer Pillay
Sholeh Rahman
Scott Klarenbach
Donna L. Reynolds
Laure A. Tessier
Guylène Thériault
Nav Persaud
Christian Finley
Natasha Leighl
Matthew D. F. McInnes
Chantelle Garritty
Gregory Traversy
Maria Tan
Lisa Hartling
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02506-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Systematic Reviews 1/2024 Go to the issue