ReviewRambam Maimonides medical journal2017
Update on Screening for Urological Malignancies.
Review in Rambam Maimonides medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inhibition of Proliferation and Induction of Apoptosis in Prostatic Carcinoma DU145 Cells by Polysaccharides from YunnanMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Circulating metabolite biomarkers: a game changer in the human prostate cancer diagnosis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Review
- Molecular Profiles of Advanced Urological Cancers in the PERMED-01 Precision Medicine Clinical Trial.Cancers · 2022Article
- The value of surveying the kidneys during pelvic ultrasound examinations.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2019Article
- Endogenous Anti-Inflammatory Very-Long-Chain Dicarboxylic Acids: Potential Chemopreventive Lipids.Metabolites · 2018Article
- Are Men Making Informed Decisions According to the Prostate-Specific Antigen Test Guidelines? Analysis of the 2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urological malignancies are a major source of morbidity and mortality in men over 40. Screening for those malignancies has a potential benefit of reducing both. However, even after more than two decades of screening for prostate cancer, the implications of most resulting information are still a matter of debate. Controversy extends over several aspects of prostate cancer screening programs, including age of onset, defining populations at risk, most appropriate intervals, as well as the optimal methods to be used for screening. The medical community is still divided regarding the effectiveness of prostate cancer-related death prevention and its benefits-to-harms ratio, reflecting an inconsistency regarding screening recommendations. Similarly, benefits of screening for urothelial and kidney tumors are yet lacking high-level evidence, although recent evidence supports screening of populations at risk. Clearly, the current era of evolving molecular and genetic biomarkers harbors the potential to change screening practice. In this paper, we review current guidelines as well as giving an update on new developments which might influence screening strategies in common urological malignancies.
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.