Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26366236›Full record

SynthesisOntario health technology assessment series2015

Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA)-Based Population Screening for Prostate Cancer: An Evidence-Based Analysis.

G Pron

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Ontario health technology assessment series, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Protective effect ofOncoTargets and therapy · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Epidemiology of prostate and kidney cancer in the Aboriginal population of Canada: A systematic review.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2017
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
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

1 author.

G Pron

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProstate cancer (PC) is the most commonly diagnosed non-cutaneous cancer in men and their second or third leading cause of cancer death. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for PC has been in common practice for more than 20 years.

objectivesA systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted to determine the effectiveness of PSA-based population screening programs for PC to inform policy decisions in a publicly funded health care system. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of bibliographic databases was performed for systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials (RCT) of PSA-based population screening programs for PC. REVIEW

methodsA broad search strategy was employed to identify studies reporting on key outcomes of PC mortality and all-cause mortality.

resultsThe search identified 5 systematic reviews and 6 RCTs. None of the systematic reviews found a statistically significant reduction in relative risk (RR) of PC mortality or overall mortality with PSA-based screening. PC mortality reductions were found to vary by country, by screening program, and by age of men at study entry. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer found a statistically significant reduction in RR in PC mortality at 11-year follow-up (0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.92), although the absolute risk reduction was small (1.0/10,000 person-years). However, the primary treatment for PCs differed significantly between countries and between trial arms. The American Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) found a statistically non-significant increase in RR for PC mortality with 13-year follow-up (1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). The degree of opportunistic screening in the control arm of the PLCO trial, however, was high. None of the RCTs found a reduction in all-cause mortality and all found a statistically significant increase in the detection of mainly low-risk, organ-confined PCs in the screening arm.

conclusionsThere was no evidence of a PC mortality reduction in the American PLCO trial, which investigated a screening program in a setting where opportunistic screening was already common practice. Given that opportunistic PSA screening practices in Canada are similar, it is unlikely that the introduction of a formal PSA screening program would reduce PC mortality.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCanadaEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMaleMass ScreeningProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited StatesBiomarkers, TumorProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID26366236
PMCPMC4561549
OpenAlexW2411464677

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.