Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20843937›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010

Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Mia Djulbegovic, Rebecca J Beyth, Molly M Neuberger, Taryn L Stoffs, Johannes Vieweg, Benjamin Djulbegovic, Philipp Dahm

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
38.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 332 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Middle ear pathologies in adults within the mining industry: A systematic review.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Multigene panels in prostate cancer risk assessment: a systematic review.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Screening with urinary dipsticks for reducing morbidity and mortality.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Screening for prostate cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mia DjulbegovicDepartment of Urology and Prostate Disease Center, University of Florida, College of Medicine, PO Box 100247, Gainesville, Florida 32610-0247, USA.
Rebecca J Beyth
Molly M Neuberger
Taryn L Stoffs
Johannes Vieweg
Benjamin Djulbegovic
Philipp Dahm
University of Florida · USFlorida College · USUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

University of Florida Older Americans Independence Center (OAIC)P30AG028740 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Peihua Qiu · 2007 to 2026
$22.8M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028740
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases including Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, abstract proceedings, and reference lists up to July 2010. Review methods Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing screening by prostate specific antigen with or without digital rectal examination versus no screening. Data abstraction and assessment of methodological quality with the GRADE approach was assessed by two independent reviewers and verified by the primary investigator. Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance estimates were calculated and pooled under a random effects model expressing data as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals.

resultsSix randomised controlled trials with a total of 387 286 participants that met inclusion criteria were analysed. Screening was associated with an increased probability of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer (relative risk 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.77; P<0.001) and stage I prostate cancer (1.95, 1.22 to 3.13; P=0.005). There was no significant effect of screening on death from prostate cancer (0.88, 0.71 to 1.09; P=0.25) or overall mortality (0.99, 0.97 to 1.01; P=0.44). All trials had one or more substantial methodological limitations. None provided data on the effects of screening on participants' quality of life. Little information was provided about potential harms associated with screening.

conclusionsThe existing evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support the routine use of screening for prostate cancer with prostate specific antigen with or without digital rectal examination.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCause of DeathDigital Rectal ExaminationEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID20843937
PMCPMC2939952
OpenAlexW2072003197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.