SynthesisBMJ open2018
Values and preferences of men for undergoing prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a clinical practice guideline.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Guideline
- Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Pooled it
- The effect of information on prostate cancer screening decision process: a discrete choice experiment.BMC health services research · 2020Trial
- PSA testing in primary care: is it time to change our practice?BMC primary care · 2024Review
- Screening for prostate cancer: evidence, ongoing trials, policies and knowledge gaps.BMJ oncology · 2023Review
- Screening for prostate cancer: protocol for updating multiple systematic reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Shared decision-making in urology and female pelvic floor medicine and reconstructive surgery.Nature reviews. Urology · 2022Review
- Preferences for More or Less Health Care and Association With Health Literacy of Men Eligible for Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening in Australia.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Article
- Measuring what really matters: Screening in primary care.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit-Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate men's values and preferences regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and grey literature up to 2 September 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Primary studies of men's values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of PSA screening. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with a modified version of a risk of bias tool for values and preferences studies, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument V.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool.
resultsWe identified 4172 unique citations, of which 11 studies proved eligible. Five studies investigated PSA screening using a direct choice study design, whereas six used decisions aids displaying patient-important outcomes. The direct choice studies used different methodologies and varied considerably in the reporting of outcomes. Two studies suggested that men were willing to forego screening with a small benefit in prostate cancer mortality if it would decrease the likelihood of unnecessary treatment or biopsies. In contrast, one study reported that men were willing to accept a substantial overdiagnosis to reduce their risk of prostate cancer mortality. Among the six studies involving decision aids, willingness to undergo screening varied substantially from 37% when displaying a hypothetical reduction in mortality of 10 per 1000 men, to 44% when displaying a reduction in mortality of 7 per 1000. We found no studies that specifically investigated whether values and preferences differed among men with family history, of African descent or with lower socioeconomic levels.
conclusionThe variability of men's values and preferences reflect that the decision to screen is highly preference sensitive. Our review highlights the need for shared decision making in men considering prostate cancer screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018095585.
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.