Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23659877›Full record

GuidelineThe Journal of urology2013

Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline.

H Ballentine Carter, Peter C Albertsen, Michael J Barry, Ruth Etzioni, Stephen J Freedland, Kirsten Lynn Greene, Lars Holmberg, Philip Kantoff, Badrinath R Konety, Mohammad Hassan Murad and 2 more

Abstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in The Journal of urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 501 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
501citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

501 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Models in Prostate Cancer: Exploring New Developments in Testing and Diagnosis.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy with and without PSMA-PET-Targeted Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Primary care physician use of patient race and polygenic risk scores in medical decision-making.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2023
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

H Ballentine CarterAmerican Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland, USA.
Peter C Albertsen
Michael J Barry
Ruth Etzioni
Stephen J Freedland
Kirsten Lynn Greene
Lars Holmberg
Philip Kantoff
Badrinath R Konety
Mohammad Hassan Murad
David F Penson
Anthony L Zietman

Funding

Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAM George NELSON · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe guideline purpose is to provide the urologist with a framework for the early detection of prostate cancer in asymptomatic average risk men. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic review was conducted and summarized evidence derived from over 300 studies that addressed the predefined outcomes of interest (prostate cancer incidence/mortality, quality of life, diagnostic accuracy and harms of testing). In addition to the quality of evidence, the panel considered values and preferences expressed in a clinical setting (patient-physician dyad) rather than having a public health perspective. Guideline statements were organized by age group in years (age <40; 40 to 54; 55 to 69; ≥ 70).

resultsExcept prostate specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening, there was minimal evidence to assess the outcomes of interest for other tests. The quality of evidence for the benefits of screening was moderate, and evidence for harm was high for men age 55 to 69 years. For men outside this age range, evidence was lacking for benefit, but the harms of screening, including over diagnosis and overtreatment, remained. Modeled data suggested that a screening interval of two years or more may be preferred to reduce the harms of screening.

conclusionsThe Panel recommended shared decision-making for men age 55 to 69 years considering PSA-based screening, a target age group for whom benefits may outweigh harms. Outside this age range, PSA-based screening as a routine could not be recommended based on the available evidence.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAge FactorsDecision MakingEarly Detection of CancerHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRisk FactorsProstate-Specific Antigendigital rectal examinationDREearly detection of cancerERSPCEuropean Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate CancerFDAFood and Drug AdministrationPLCOProstate Lung, Colorectal and Ovarianprostate specific antigenprostate-specific antigenprostatic neoplasmsPSArandomized controlled trialRCT

Identifiers

PMID23659877
PMCPMC4020420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.