Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22343837›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2012

PSA screening: determinants of primary-care physician practice patterns.

G E Tasian, M R Cooperberg, M B Potter, J E Cowan, K L Greene, P R Carroll, J M Chan

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Prostate Cancer Screening: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices by Medical Doctors in Portugal.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  3. Primary Care Providers' Intended Use of Decision Aids for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019
    Article
  4. Landmarks in prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2018
    Review
  5. Prostate cancer screening among family physicians in Ontario: An update on attitudes and current practice.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

G E TasianDivision of Urology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (work conducted while at the University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA), Philadelphia, PA, USA.
M R Cooperberg
M B Potter
J E Cowan
K L Greene
P R Carroll
J M Chan

Funding

UCSF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTEUL1RR024131 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI JOHNSTON, S. CLAIBORNE · 2006 to 2011
$111.2M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024131
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effect of practice guidelines and the European Randomised Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) trials on PSA screening practices of primary-care physicians (PCPs) is unknown.

methodsWe conducted a national cross-sectional on-line survey of a random sample of 3010 PCPs from July to August 2010. Participants were queried about their knowledge of prostate cancer, PSA screening guidelines, the ERSPC and PLCO trials, and about their PSA screening practices. Factors associated with PSA screening were identified using multivariable linear regression.

resultsA total of 152 (5%) participants opened and 89 completed the on-line survey, yielding a response rate of 58% for those that viewed the invitation. Eighty percent of respondents correctly identified prostate cancer risk factors. In all, 51% and 64% reported that they discuss and order PSA screening for men aged 50-75 years, respectively. Fifty-four percent were most influenced by the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines. Also, 21% and 28% of respondents stated that their PSA screening practices were influenced by the ERSPC and PLCO trials, respectively. Medical specialty was the only variable associated with propensity to screen, with family medicine physicians more likely to use PSA screening than internists (β=0.21, P=0.02).

conclusionsHalf of the physicians surveyed did not routinely discuss PSA screening with eligible patients. The impact of the ERSPC and PLCO trials on PSA screening practices was low among US PCPs. USPSTF recommendations for PSA screening continue to be the strongest influence on PCPs' propensity to use PSA screening.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMalePhysicians, Primary CarePractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Prostate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID22343837

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.