Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27419037›Full record

ReviewPreventive medicine reports2016

From 'D' to 'I': A critique of the current United States preventive services task force recommendation for testicular cancer screening.

Michael J Rovito, Janna Manjelievskaia, James E Leone, Michael J Lutz, Ajay Nangia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Preventive medicine reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

5 authors.

Michael J RovitoCollege of Health and Public Affairs, Department of Health Professions, University of Central Florida, 12805 Pegasus Drive, HPA1 Room 269, Orlando, FL 32828, United States.
Janna ManjelievskaiaMayes College of Healthcare Business and Policy, Department of Health Policy and Public Health, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, 600 S 43rd St, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
James E LeoneDepartment of Movement Arts, Health Promotion, and Leisure Studies, Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, MA 02325, United States.
Michael J LutzMichigan Institute of Urology, 6900 Orchard Lake Rd. West Bloomfield, MI 48322, United States.
Ajay NangiaDept. of Urology, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS 66160, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2004, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) gave testicular cancer (TCa) screening a 'D' recommendation, discouraging the use of this preventive service. The USPSTF suggested that screening, inclusive of testicular self-examination (TSE) and clinician examination, does not reduce TCa mortality rates and that the high risk of false positives could serve as a detriment to patient quality of life. Others suggests that TCa screening is ineffective at detecting early-stage cases of TCa and readily highlights a lack of empirical evidence demonstrating said efficacy. These assertions, however, stand in stark contrast to the widely held support of TCa screening among practicing public health professionals, advocacy groups, and clinicians. In this present study, a review was conducted of the methods and processes used by the USPSTF in their 2011 reaffirmation of the 'D' grade recommendation. The evidence base and commentary offered as to why TSE, as part of the overall recommendation for TCa screening, was given a 'D' grade were analyzed for logical reasoning and methodological rigor. Considering the methodological flaws and the veritable lack of evidence needed to grant a conclusive recommendation, the question is raised if the current 'D' grade for TCa screening (i.e. discourage the use of said service) should be changed to an 'I' statement (i.e. the balance of benefits and harms is indeterminate). Therefore the purpose of this paper is to present the evidence of TCa screening in the context of efficacy and prevention in order for the field to reassess its relative value.

Indexed as

Early detection of cancerPractice guidelines as topicSelf-examinationTesticular neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27419037
PMCPMC4929233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.