ReviewPreventive medicine reports2016
From 'D' to 'I': A critique of the current United States preventive services task force recommendation for testicular cancer screening.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Promoting men's awareness, self-examination, and help-seeking for testicular disorders: a systematic review of interventions.HRB open research · 2018Pooled it
- Review
- Testicular self-examination for early detection of testicular cancer.World journal of urology · 2023Review
- Better Knowledge about Testicular Cancer Might Improve the Rate of Testicular (Self-)Examination: A Survey among 1,025 Medical Students in Germany.Urologia internationalis · 2022Article
- Screening for cancers with a good prognosis: The case of testicular germ cell cancer.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- A Call to Action to Review the USPSTF's Recommendation for Testicular Self-Examination.American journal of men's healthArticle
- A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Testicular Cancer Symptom Recognition and Stage of Diagnosis.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.