ArticleHippokratia2010
Screening for prostate cancer: a controversy or fact.
Article in Hippokratia, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative ultrasound spectroscopic imaging for characterization of disease extent in prostate cancer patients.Translational oncology · 2015Article
- Utilization of prostate cancer screening according to dietary patterns and other demographic variables. The adventist health study-2.Journal of Cancer · 2013Article
- Prostate cancer outcome in Burkina Faso.Infectious agents and cancer · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdenocarcinoma of the prostate is the most frequent malignancy in men and the second leading cause of death in the male population worldwide. The screening for prostate cancer allows early diagnosis of prostate malignancy before the individual presents with symptoms. The early stage of the disease is easier to manage by different therapeutic modalities.
aimThe aim of this review is to evaluate the reasons and facts for enthusiasm and positive approach towards the clinical decision about whether to screen or not male patients for early detection of prostate cancer.
methodsWe performed a computerized MEDLINE search followed by a manual bibliographic review of cross-references. These reports were analyzed and the important findings were summarized. We analyzed the methods and schedule of screening, as well as advantages and disadvantages of the prostate cancer screening.
resultsThere were more than a hundred studies on prostate cancer screening performed but only a few are eligible for a decisive conclusion concerning the prostate cancer screening issue. We reviewed the screening methods, the schedule of screening, the advantages and disadvantages of prostate cancer screening.
conclusionThe role for prostate cancer screening is not established yet. Definite proof of screening should be assumed as a decrease in the death rate of that cancer due to screening activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20981165PMC2943354What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.