Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24859436›Full record

ArticleJournal of behavioral medicine2014

Have screening harms become newsworthy? News coverage of prostate and colorectal cancer screening since the 2008 USPSTF recommendation changes.

Emily A Elstad, Stacey L Sheridan, Joseph G L Lee, Christine Rini, Jo Anne Earp, Noel T Brewer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of behavioral medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Preventive health care and the media.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020
    Article
  3. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors.

Emily A ElstadDepartment of Health Behavior, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 302 Rosenau Hall, CB #7440, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7440, USA, elstad@email.unc.edu.
Stacey L Sheridan
Joseph G L Lee
Christine Rini
Jo Anne Earp
Noel T Brewer

Funding

UNC-CH TRAINING PROGRAM IN HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCHT32HS000032 · AHRQ · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HOLMES, GEORGE M · 1989 to 2024
$8.2M
Understanding Physicians' and Patients' Views of Harms and Clinical Preventive SP01HS021133 · AHRQ · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HARRIS, RUSSELL P · 2011 to 2013
$4.5M
AHRQ HHS P01-HS21133-02AHRQ HHS T32-HS000032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2008, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations to discourage screening for prostate cancer in men over 75 and for colorectal cancer in adults over 85. We aimed to determine whether newspapers portrayed these screenings differently after these recommendation changes. A quantitative content analysis included articles on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or colonoscopy in US newspapers from 2005 to 2012. Outcomes included the number of benefits and harms mentioned and the gist expert and lay readers might get from articles. Benefits in PSA articles (n = 222) and harms and benefits in colonoscopy articles (n = 65) did not change over time. Mentions of PSA harms increased after 2008 (p < .01). Expected expert gist of PSA articles became more negative after 2008 (p < .01). Expected lay gist was positive and did not change. News coverage of PSA testing harms increased without a decrease in the discussion of benefits. Consumers, especially lay consumers, are receiving unbalanced information on cancer screening.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerHumansNewspapers as TopicProstate-Specific AntigenRisk AssessmentProstate-Specific Antigen

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.