Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30859272›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2019

Smarter screening for prostate cancer.

Guan Hee Tan, Gregory Nason, Khaled Ajib, Dixon Teck Sing Woon, Jaime Herrera-Caceres, Omar Alhunaidi, Nathan Perlis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The emerging role of mFrontiers in immunology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. With New Technology Comes Great Responsibility: Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Imaging in Recurrent Prostate Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Guan Hee TanUniversity Health Network-Toronto General Hospital and Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, 3-130, Toronto, ON, M6G 2M9, Canada.
Gregory NasonUniversity Health Network-Toronto General Hospital and Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, 3-130, Toronto, ON, M6G 2M9, Canada.
Khaled AjibUniversity Health Network-Toronto General Hospital and Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, 3-130, Toronto, ON, M6G 2M9, Canada.
Dixon Teck Sing WoonUniversity Health Network-Toronto General Hospital and Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, 3-130, Toronto, ON, M6G 2M9, Canada.
Jaime Herrera-CaceresUniversity Health Network-Toronto General Hospital and Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, 3-130, Toronto, ON, M6G 2M9, Canada.
Omar AlhunaidiUniversity Health Network-Toronto General Hospital and Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, 3-130, Toronto, ON, M6G 2M9, Canada.
Nathan PerlisUniversity Health Network-Toronto General Hospital and Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Division of Urology, University of Toronto, 610 University Avenue, 3-130, Toronto, ON, M6G 2M9, Canada. Nathan.perlis@uhn.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProstate cancer is the second commonest cancer among men. In the large European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has been shown to substantially reduce prostate cancer mortality. However, PSA screening is known to lead to more unnecessary prostate biopsies and over-diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. Therefore, it is imperative that smarter screening methods be developed to overcome the weaknesses of PSA screening. This review explores the novel screening tools that are available.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed regarding newer biomarkers, imaging techniques and risk-predicting models that are used to screen for prostate cancer in mainly biopsy-naïve men.

resultsNovel serum-based models like 4Kscore

conclusionWhile we continue to find the smarter screening methods that are reliable, precise, and cost-effective, we continue to advocate shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening in order to work in our patients' best interests.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerHumansMaleProstatic NeoplasmsmpMRIProstate cancerScreeningSerum biomarkerUrine biomarker

Identifiers

PMID30859272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.