ArticleBMC public health2019
Digital rectal examination and its associated factors in the early detection of prostate cancer: a cross-sectional population-based study.
Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cancer inequalities in incidence and mortality in the State of São Paulo, Brazil 2001-17.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Overdiagnosis and overuse of diagnostic and screening tests in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review.BMJ global health · 2022Article
- Covid-19 in Brazil in 2020: impact on deaths from cancer and cardiovascular diseases.Revista de saude publica · 2022Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and elastography-derived data for the stratification of patients with prostate cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2021Article
- Attitude Toward Prostate Cancer Screening in Hong Kong: The Importance of Perceived Consequence and Anticipated Regret.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital rectal examination (DRE) is one of the most common strategies for prostate cancer early detection. However, the use for screening purposes has a controversial benefit and potential harms can occur due to false-positive results, overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The objective of this study is to calculate the prevalence and identify factors associated with the receipt of DRE in Brazilian men.
methodsWe selected men older than 40 from a nationwide population-based survey (13,625 individuals) excluding those with prostate cancer diagnosis. Information was extracted from the most recent database of the Brazilian National Health Survey (PNS 2013). Statistical analysis was carried out to calculate incidence rate ratios, with 95% confidence intervals and p values, through multivariate analysis with Poisson regression and robust variance.
resultsMen having private health insurance (63.3%; CI = 60.5-66.0) presented higher prevalence of DRE than those in the public health system (41.6%; CI = 39.8-43.4). The results show a positive association between DRE and men having private health insurance, aged 60-69, living with a spouse, never smokers, and living in urban areas. Among public health services users, this positive association was observed among men aged 70-79, living with a spouse, having bad/very bad health self-perception, abstainers, ex-smokers, with undergraduate studies, presenting four or more comorbidities, and residing in urban areas.
conclusionsProstate cancer screening with DRE is quite frequent in Brazil, specially among men with private health plans and better access to health services, healthier lifestyle and at more advanced ages, characteristics which increase the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
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.