ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2020
National trends in the management of low-risk prostate cancer: analyzing the impact of Medicaid expansion in the United States.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate recent trends in the management of low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and analyze differences in adoption of surveillance based on state Medicaid-expansion status in the United States (US).
methodsUsing the National Cancer Database, we identified men diagnosed from 2012 to 2016. Men with histologically confirmed low-risk PCa defined as PSA less than 10 ng/ml, Gleason score ≤ 6, and cT1-T2a were included. The Cochran Armitage test was used to evaluate trends in surveillance versus treatment. Comparisons on surveillance adoption based on 2014 Medicaid expansion status and difference-in-difference analysis were performed.
resultsThe cohort included 84,340 men. During the study period, surveillance as initial management increased from 13.6% in 2012 to 32.1% in 2016 (p < 0.01). When comparing by Medicaid-expansion status, expansion states had higher rates in adoption of surveillance as compared to non-expansion states over the study period (36.6 vs 28.5%). Following expansion, men in expansion states were 1.94% more likely to be treated with surveillance than in earlier years (p < 0.01). Men in non-expansion states were 1.97% more likely to receive surveillance following expansion (p < 0.01) for a relative 0.03% difference in active surveillance adoption among men with low-risk PCa (95% CI - 0.004 to 0.013, p = 0.344).
conclusionBased on the data from 2012 to 2016, there has been a significant increase in active surveillance as initial management for low-risk PCa in the US. Medicaid expansion was not found to be detrimental in adoption of surveillance. Understanding the impact of payer status on health outcomes can aid in the development of future health care policies aiming to mitigate disparities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32285285What 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.