Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28520820›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Association between features of patient-provider discussions and routine prostate-specific antigen testing.

Joshua M Liao, Mark J Ommerborn, Cheryl R Clark

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Associations of Content and Context of Communication with Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Effect of a Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Aid for African-American Men in Primary Care Settings.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joshua M LiaoDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9788-9074
Mark J OmmerbornCenter for Community Health and Health Equity, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Cheryl R ClarkCenter for Community Health and Health Equity, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends against routine prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, specialty organizations support screening via shared decision making between providers and selected patients. While discussions about advantages and disadvantages of testing are a feature of patient-centered care, it is unclear how provider recommendations and the presence of a personal doctor influence testing in the presence of such discussions. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe used the 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to identify 1,737 male respondents surveyed about their PSA testing decisions. We describe the prevalence of provider recommendations and utilize weighted multivariable logistic regression models to examine the impact of provider recommendations and presence of a personal doctor on routine testing while accounting for patient-provider discussions about advantages and disadvantages.

resultsThe majority (70.4%) of respondents reported some form of discussion with providers about testing and most underwent screening in accordance with provider recommendations. In multivariable analyses, men whose providers had never recommended PSA test were less likely to receive screening [OR 0.03, 95% CI (0.02-0.05)], and patients who did not identify a personal doctor in their care were less likely to undergo testing [OR 0.12, 95% CI (0.04-0.32)]. DISCUSSION: Provider recommendations and having a personal doctor are associated with routine PSA testing. These findings suggest that providers and policymakers should be aware of how the content and context of communication with patients, beyond discussions of risks and benefits, can influence routine PSA testing behaviors.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePhysician-Patient RelationsAgedEarly Detection of CancerHumansMaleMiddle AgedProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID28520820
PMCPMC5433742
OpenAlexW2615656285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.