Trial reportPloS one2019
Cost-effectiveness analysis of PSA-based mass screening: Evidence from a randomised controlled trial combined with register data.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review on the Cost Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe.European urology · 2024Pooled it
- Impact of PSA testing on secondary care costs in England and Wales: estimates from the Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer (CAP).BMC health services research · 2023Trial
- Evaluating Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for Young African American Men With Cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In contrast to earlier studies which have used modelling to perform cost-effectiveness analysis, this study links data from a randomised controlled trial with register data from nationwide registries to reveal new evidence on costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of organised mass prostate-cancer screening based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted with individual-level data on health-care costs from comprehensive registers and register data on real-world effectiveness from the two arms of the Finnish Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (FinRSPC), following 80,149 men from 1996 through 2015. The study examines cost-effectiveness in terms of overall mortality and, in addition, in terms of diagnosed men's mortality from prostate cancer and mortality with but not from prostate cancer. Neither arm of the FinRSPC was clearly more cost-effective in analysis in terms of overall mortality. Organised screening in the FinRSPC could be considered cost-effective in terms of deaths from prostate cancer: averting just over one death per 1000 men screened. However, even with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of below 20,000€ per death avoided, this result should not be considered in isolation. This is because mass screening in this trial also resulted in increases in death with, but not from, prostate cancer: with over five additional deaths per 1000 men screened. Analysis of real-world data from the FinRSPC reveals new evidence of the comparative effectiveness of PSA-based screening after 20 years of follow-up, suggesting the possibility of higher mortality, as well as higher healthcare costs, for screening-arm men who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer but who do not die from it. These findings should be corroborated or contradicted by similar analyses using data from other trials, in order to reveal if more diagnosed men have also died in the screening arms of other trials of mass screening for prostate cancer.
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.