ArticleProstate international2016
Primary care follow-up of radical prostatectomy patients: A regional New Zealand experience.
Article in Prostate international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Refinement of Clinical Tumor Marker Monitoring: Why Not Use an Inverse Value of Doubling Time?Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2021Article
- Association between PSA values and surveillance quality after prostate cancer surgery.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Review
- Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen: A guide to the guidelines.Prostate international · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContemporary recommendations regarding the duration of follow-up after radical prostatectomy (RP) are highly heterogeneous. Protocol-based follow-up schemes have been implemented to facilitate the expeditious identification of patients with recurrence. The aim of this study is to assess the reliability and comfort of general practitioners (GPs) in follow-up of RP.
methodsFollowing institutional ethical approval, we performed a retrospective review in patients undergoing follow-up after RP between January 2004 and December 2010. Patient factors, disease variables, and follow-up prostate specific antigen (PSA) compliance was collected. "Noncompliant" follow-up care was defined as: patients that had not received a PSA for a 14 month period within 5 years of prostatectomy. Patient and disease-based risk factors for noncompliant follow-up were assessed. GPs were also surveyed in their follow-up practice of RP patients, to assess their familiarity in caring for these patients.
resultsIn total, 65 cases were identified that met the inclusion criteria. At 60 months of follow-up, 66% (43/65) of patients had a compliant follow-up regime. For patients with noncompliant follow-up at 60 months, median time of compliance did not differ significantly when assessing preoperative PSA, Gleason sum, extraprostatic extension, or surgical margin status. Of the GPs surveyed, 68% of GPs felt comfortable in follow-up of RP patients. Some 62% of GPs would expect the PSA to be < 0.1 and 25% of GPs would measure the PSA annually.
conclusionOur study identified that follow-up by GPs after RP is insufficient. Accordingly, there is a requirement for formal educational programs if primary care is to take a greater role in follow-up of these patients.
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.