Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30097885›Full record

ReviewAdvances in therapy2018

Prostate Cancer in Primary Care.

Samuel W D Merriel, Garth Funston, Willie Hamilton

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 170 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Prostate Cancer Screening: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices by Medical Doctors in Portugal.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Association between periodontal disease and prostate disease: a mini review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Samuel W D MerrielExeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. s.w.d.merriel@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2919-9087
Garth FunstonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Willie HamiltonExeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
University of Exeter · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy seen worldwide. The incidence has risen in recent decades, mainly fuelled by more widespread use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, although prostate cancer mortality rates have remained relatively static over that time period. A man's risk of prostate cancer is affected by his age and family history of the disease. Men with prostate cancer generally present symptomatically in primary care settings, although some diagnoses are made in asymptomatic men undergoing opportunistic PSA screening. Symptoms traditionally thought to correlate with prostate cancer include lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), such as nocturia and poor urinary stream, erectile dysfunction and visible haematuria. However, there is significant crossover in symptoms between prostate cancer and benign conditions affecting the prostate such as benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) and prostatitis, making it very challenging to distinguish between them on the basis of symptoms. The evidence for the performance of PSA in asymptomatic and symptomatic men for the diagnosis of prostate cancer is equivocal. PSA is subject to false positive and false negative results, affecting its clinical utility as a standalone test. Clinicians need to counsel men about the risks and benefits of PSA testing to inform their decision-making. Digital rectal examination (DRE) by primary care clinicians has some evidence to show discrimination between benign and malignant conditions affecting the prostate. Patients referred to secondary care for diagnostic testing for prostate cancer will typically undergo a transrectal or transperineal biopsy, where a number of samples are taken and sent for histological examination. These biopsies are invasive procedures with side effects and a risk of infection and sepsis, and alternative tests such as multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) are currently being trialled for their accuracy and safety in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer.

Indexed as

Age FactorsBiopsyDigital Rectal ExaminationGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansIncidenceLower Urinary Tract SymptomsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePrimary Health CareProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRisk FactorsProstate-Specific AntigenDiagnosisLUTSPrimary careProstate cancerProstate-specific antigen

Identifiers

PMID30097885
PMCPMC6133140
OpenAlexW2885322156

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.