ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2018
Screening for prostate cancer: are organized screening programs necessary?
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review on the Cost Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe.European urology · 2024Pooled it
- Using AI in Forward-Backward Translation of Questionnaires for Men Invited to Prostate Cancer Screening: Methodological Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Incorporating PHI in decision making: external validation of the Rotterdam risk calculators for detection of prostate cancer.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Associations of Content and Context of Communication with Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- The role of multiparametric resonance and biopsy in prostate cancer detection: comparison with definitive histological report after laparoscopic/robotic radical prostatectomy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2020Article
- Increased Risk of Site-Specific Cancer in People with Type 2 Diabetes: A National Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Prostate cancer incidence and mortality in the Baltic states, Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.BMJ open · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Already in 1991 when the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test was proposed as a diagnostic test, screening for prostate cancer (PCa) was considered controversial due to the considerable risk of detecting latent PCa. Randomised controlled trials were initiated to assess the potential of PSA-based screening in reducing disease-specific mortality. Harms and benefit were closely monitored and both were confirmed. A reduction in mortality was seen and at the same time the initial fear of unnecessary testing and over diagnosis became reality. This triggered professional organizations to adapt their guidelines and to focus on shared decision making (SDM) and selective screening for those men considered at high risk. Unfortunately implementation of guidelines into daily clinical practice is bothersome. As a result many men are being (re)tested while not being at risk and the potential benefit being unclear. This raises the question on whether PSA screening should be organized in controlled programs. While the PSA test will remain the mainstay of PCa early detection many other additional tests (biomarkers/imaging) are currently being tested in large population-based initiatives as a first step to organized programs in selective groups of men.
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.