Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21243007›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2011

Prostate cancer screening and informed decision-making: provider and patient perspectives.

D J Bowen, P A Hannon, J R Harris, D P Martin

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. The association between physician trust and prostate-specific antigen screening: Implications for shared decision-making.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

D J BowenDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA 02118, USA. dbowen@bu.edu
P A Hannon
J R Harris
D P Martin
Seattle University · USBoston University · US

Funding

Health Promotion Research CenterU48DP000050 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HARRIS, JEFFREY R. · 2004 to 2008
$8.4M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS 1-U48-DP-000050
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective was to determine the extent of informed decision making for prostate cancer screening in a defined population. A state-wide population based survey of men aged 50 and above (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2004, Washington state) and a simple random sample of primary care physicians, were conducted in the same geographic area. We examined prostate cancer screening rates among the men (defined as either PSA or digital rectal examination within the past year) and prostate cancer screening practices among the physicians. Screening rates were 56% at ages 50-64, 68% at ages 65-79 and 64% among men age 80 and older. Adjusted analyses indicated that age, income, marital status, possessing health insurance and a personal health care provider, and talking with a provider about prostate cancer screening tests were all positively associated with screening status. In the physician survey, most physicians recommend screening to their average-risk male patients. Three-fourths (74%) of physicians discussed benefits and risks of PSA testing with their patients; but few used educational tools. Only 35% discussed the side effects of prostate cancer treatment with their patients. The rates of screening reported by men were relatively high, given that current recommendations promote informed decision making rather than universal screening. The majority of physicians recommend prostate cancer screening to their patients, with few decision-making tools used. All relevant information may not be provided in the discussion. These results point to the need for increasing informed decision making about prostate cancer screening.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient Education as TopicAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelEarly Detection of CancerGeneral PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Prostatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentSocioeconomic FactorsWashington

Identifiers

PMID21243007
OpenAlexW2025138434

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.