Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23481031›Full record

ArticleMedical care2013

Counterpoint: Randomized trials provide the strongest evidence for clinical guidelines: The US Preventive Services Task Force and Prostate Cancer Screening.

Joy Melnikow, Michael LeFevre, Timothy J Wilt, Virginia A Moyer

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A model too far.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2014
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joy MelnikowDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. jamelnikow@ucdavis.edu
Michael LeFevre
Timothy J Wilt
Virginia A Moyer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe US Preventive Services Task Force recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer based primarily on 2 large long-term randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and a systematic review of harms resulting from screening.

objectiveTo support use of large, long-term randomized trials as the evidence base for clinical guidelines on screening and to draw attention to limitations of modeling studies used for this purpose.

methodsWe respond to critiques of use of RCTs as the primary evidence base, considering the results of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trials, documented harms resulting from PSA screening, and methodological concerns with modeling studies.

resultsThe PLCO and ERSPC provided 11-13 years of follow-up on over 250,000 subjects. The PLCO, despite limitations, is most representative of US populations, screening and treatment practices, and showed no mortality benefit resulting from annual PSA testing after 13 years of follow-up. The confidence interval was narrow and precluded more than a 13% relative mortality reduction. Competing causes of mortality in older men make it progressively less likely that longer follow-up will demonstrate a large absolute reduction in disease-specific mortality. With continued screening, the increasing prevalence of asymptomatic cancers in older men will increase the rate of overdiagnosis. Potential harms from screening and treatment are significant.

conclusionsProjections from models are subject to mistaken assumptions and investigator biases, and should not be accorded the same weight as evidence from RCTs. Current empiric evidence is sufficient to support the US Preventive Services Task Force guideline that clinicians should recommend against PSA screening for prostate cancer.

Indexed as

Health PolicyEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMaleProstatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

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.