ArticleJournal of oncology practice2017
Use of Evidence-Based Prostate Cancer Imaging in a Nongovernmental Integrated Health Care System.
Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants of the overuse of imaging in low-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review.Urologic oncology · 2017Pooled it
- Fee cuts for radiology and low-value imaging.International journal of health economics and management · 2025Article
- Impact of choosing wisely on imaging in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.Urologic oncology · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe overuse of imaging, particularly for staging of low-risk prostate cancer, is well documented and widespread. The existing literature, which focuses on the elderly in fee-for-service settings, points to financial incentives as a driver of overuse and may not identify factors relevant to policy solutions within integrated health care systems, where physicians are salaried.
methodsImaging rates were analyzed among men with incident prostate cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2011 within the Colorado and Northwest regions of Kaiser Permanente. The sample was stratified according to indication for imaging, ie, high risk for whom imaging was necessary versus low risk for whom imaging was discouraged. Logistic regression was used to model the association between imaging receipt and clinical/demographic patient characteristics by risk strata.
resultsOf the men with low-risk prostate cancer, 35% received nonindicated imaging at diagnosis, whereas 42% of men with high-risk prostate cancer did not receive indicated imaging. Compared with men diagnosed in 2004, those diagnosed in subsequent years were less likely to receive imaging across both risk groups. Men with high-risk cancer diagnosed at ≥ 65 years of age and those with clinical stage ≥ T2 were more likely to receive indicated imaging. Men with comorbidities were more likely to receive imaging across both risk groups. Men with low-risk prostate cancer who had higher median household incomes were less likely to receive nonindicated imaging.
conclusionNonindicated imaging for diagnostic staging of patients with low-risk prostate cancer was common, but has decreased over the past decade. These findings suggest that factors other than financial incentives may be driving overuse of imaging.
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.