ArticleMedical care2013
Counterpoint: Randomized trials provide the strongest evidence for clinical guidelines: The US Preventive Services Task Force and Prostate Cancer Screening.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- MR Molecular Imaging of Extradomain-B Fibronectin for Assessing Progression and Therapy Resistance of Prostate Cancer.Chemical & biomedical imaging · 2024Article
- Reconciling the Effects of Screening on Prostate Cancer Mortality in the ERSPC and PLCO Trials.Annals of internal medicine · 2017Article
- Targeted Contrast Agent Specific to an Oncoprotein in Tumor Microenvironment with the Potential for Detection and Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer with MRI.Bioconjugate chemistry · 2017Article
- The contribution of rare variation to prostate cancer heritability.Nature genetics · 2016Article
- Evaluation of the normal-to-diseased apparent diffusion coefficient ratio as an indicator of prostate cancer aggressiveness.BMC medical imaging · 2014Article
- A model too far.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2014Article
- From bench to bedside: the realities of reducing global prostate cancer disparity in black men.Ecancermedicalscience · 2014Review
- Response: Reading between the lines of cancer screening trials: using modeling to understand the evidence.Medical care · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
23481031What 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.