ArticleBMJ open2016
Knowledge and practice of prostate cancer screening among general practitioners in Malaysia: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions, Knowledge, and Attitudes of General Population About Prostate Cancer-Associated Risk Factors: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies Focusing on Lifestyle.Current oncology reports · 2025Pooled it
- Urologists' and general practitioners' knowledge, beliefs and practice relevant for opportunistic prostate cancer screening: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Prostate-specific antigen testing and opportunistic prostate cancer screening: a cohort study in England, 1998-2017.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Trial
- Prostate cancer knowledge and barriers to screening among men at risk in northern Tanzania: A community-based study.Cancer treatment and research communications · 2024Article
- Prostate Cancer: Burden and Correlation with Prostate Specific Antigen Among Screened African Men in Tanzania.Research and reports in urology · 2024Article
- The Risk Factors and Screening Uptake for Prostate Cancer: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Knowledge, attitude and practice on screening and early diagnosis of prostate cancer of primary health care providers in the Free State.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2023Article
- The Effect of Educational Program Based on PRECEDE Model in Promoting Prostate Cancer Screening in a Sample of Iranian Men.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Article
- Early detection of prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen testing: an empirical evaluation among general practitioners and urologists.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveScreening for prostate cancer remains controversial. General practitioners (GPs) play an important role in assisting men to make an informed decision on prostate cancer screening. The aim of this study was to determine the knowledge and practice of prostate cancer screening among private GPs in Malaysia.
designA cross-sectional study.
settingPrivate general practices in Selangor, Malaysia.
participants311 randomly selected full-time private GPs were recruited between September 2013 and January 2014. OUTCOME MEASURES: Questionnaires were distributed to the GPs via postal mail and clinic visits. The main outcomes were: knowledge of prostate cancer risk factors and screening tests; GPs' prostate cancer screening practices; and factors influencing GPs' decision to screen for prostate cancer. Associations between covariates and propensity to screen for prostate cancer were determined using logistic regression.
resultsThe response rate was 65%. The proportion of GPs who overestimated the positive predictive values of prostrate-specific antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE) and a combination of PSA and DRE was 63%, 57% and 64%, respectively. About 49.5% of the respondents would routinely screen asymptomatic men for prostate cancer; of them, 94.9% would use PSA to screen. Male GPs who would consider having a PSA test performed on themselves were six times more likely to screen asymptomatic men than GPs who would not have the test (OR=6.88, 95% CI 1.40 to 33.73), after adjusting for age and duration of practice.
conclusionsGPs overestimated the accuracy of PSA in prostate cancer screening. Their intention to screen for prostate cancer themselves predicted their propensity to screen their patients for prostate cancer. This finding highlights the potential of using a new approach to change GPs' screening practices via addressing GPs' own screening behaviour.
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.