Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25756146›Full record

SynthesisCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2015

Systematic review of clinical features of suspected prostate cancer in primary care.

Sheila-Mae Young, Praveen Bansal, Emily T Vella, Antonio Finelli, Cheryl Levitt, Andrew Loblaw

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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.

Sheila-Mae Young
Praveen Bansal
Emily T Vella
Antonio Finelli
Cheryl Levitt
Andrew Loblaw

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review the literature and provide an update and integration of existing peer-reviewed guidelines with recent systematic reviews and with primary studies related to the early recognition and management of prostate cancer in primary care. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant articles. The quality of the evidence to support existing guideline recommendations and the consistency of recommendations with updated evidence were assessed. Applicability in a Canadian primary care setting was also evaluated. STUDY SELECTION: All studies conducted in the primary care setting that provided information on clinical features predictive of prostate cancer were included. Also, studies that assessed the accuracy of nomograms to predict prostate cancer were reviewed. SYNTHESIS: The findings suggest that lower urinary tract symptoms are not highly predictive of prostate cancer. However, evidence suggests that FPs might be good at discriminating between patients with and without prostate cancer using digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen testing. Nomograms might also be useful in assessing patients for aggressive prostate cancers.

conclusionThe results of this review can be used to inform recommendations for referral for suspected prostate cancer in the primary care setting. They could also inform development of prostate cancer diagnostic assessment programs.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicPrimary Health CareEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineHumansLower Urinary Tract SymptomsMaleProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsSymptom AssessmentProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID25756146
PMCPMC4301783

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.