Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23165396›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2013

The link between benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer.

David D Ørsted, Stig E Bojesen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 192 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

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

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David D Ørsted54N5 Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark.
Stig E Bojesen
Herlev Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer are among the most common diseases of the prostate gland and represent significant burdens for patients and health-care systems in many countries. The two diseases share traits such as hormone-dependent growth and response to antiandrogen therapy. Furthermore, risk factors such as prostate inflammation and metabolic disruption have key roles in the development of both diseases. Despite these commonalities, BPH and prostate cancer exhibit important differences in terms of histology and localization. Although large-scale epidemiological studies have shown that men with BPH have an increased risk of prostate cancer and prostate-cancer-related mortality, it remains unclear whether this association reflects a causal link, shared risk factors or pathophysiological mechanisms, or detection bias upon statistical analysis. Establishing BPH as a causal factor for prostate cancer development could improve the accuracy of prognostication and expedite intervention, potentially reducing the number of men who die from prostate cancer.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBiopsy, NeedleCell Transformation, NeoplasticHumansImmunohistochemistryIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedPrecancerous ConditionsPrognosisProstatic HyperplasiaProstatic NeoplasmsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID23165396
OpenAlexW1999866993

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.