ReviewThe Urologic clinics of North America2014
What do the screening trials really tell us and where do we go from here?
Review in The Urologic clinics of North America, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2020Review
- Prostate Cancer Screening.The Medical clinics of North America · 2018Review
- The effect of the USPSTF PSA screening recommendation on prostate cancer incidence patterns in the USA.Nature reviews. Urology · 2017Review
- Urine TMPRSS2:ERG Plus PCA3 for Individualized Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment.European urology · 2016Article
- Clonal evaluation of prostate cancer foci in biopsies with discontinuous tumor involvement by dual ERG/SPINK1 immunohistochemistry.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2016Article
- Quantifying Gleason scores with photoacoustic spectral analysis: feasibility study with human tissues.Biomedical optics express · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Publication of apparently conflicting results from 2 large trials of prostate cancer screening has intensified the debate about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and has led to a recommendation against screening from the US Preventive Services Task Force. This article reviews the trials and discusses the limitations of their empirical results in informing public health policy. In particular, the authors explain why harm-benefit trade-offs based on empirical results may not accurately reflect the trade-offs expected under long-term population screening. This information should be useful to clinicians in understanding the implications of these studies regarding the value of PSA screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.