Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25997905›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2015

Pre-screening Discussions and Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening.

Jun Li, Guixiang Zhao, Ingrid J Hall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Impact of Receipt of Information on Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing on Screening with the Prostate-Specific Antigen Test.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023
    Article
  3. Associations of Content and Context of Communication with Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. What's new in screening in 2015?Current opinion in urology · 2016
    Review
  8. Article
  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

3 authors.

Jun LiDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: ffa2@cdc.gov.
Guixiang ZhaoDivision of Population Health (Zhao), National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia.
Ingrid J HallDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFor many men, the net benefit of prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests may be small. Many major medical organizations have issued recommendations for prostate cancer screening, stressing the need for shared decision making before ordering a test. The purpose of this study is to better understand associations between discussions about benefits and harms of PSA testing and uptake of the test among men aged ≥40 years.

methodsAssociations between pre-screening discussions and PSA testing were examined using self-reported data from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Unadjusted prevalence of PSA testing was estimated and AORs were calculated using logistic regression in 2014.

resultsThe multivariate analysis showed that men who had ever discussed advantages of PSA testing only or discussed both advantages and disadvantages were more likely, respectively, to report having had a test within the past year than men who had no discussions (p<0.001). In addition, men who had only discussed the disadvantages of PSA testing with their healthcare providers were more likely (AOR=2.75, 95% CI=2.00, 3.79) to report getting tested than men who had no discussions.

conclusionsDiscussions of the benefits or harms of PSA testing are positively associated with increased uptake of the test. Given the conflicting recommendations for prostate cancer screening and increasing importance of shared decision making, this study points to the need for understanding how pre-screening discussions are being conducted in clinical practice and the role played by patients' values and preferences in decisions about PSA testing.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultAgedBehavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemEarly Detection of CancerHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID25997905
PMCPMC4536805

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.