ArticleBJGP open2020
A genetic risk assessment for prostate cancer influences patients' risk perception and use of repeat PSA testing: a cross-sectional study in Danish general practice.
Article in BJGP open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01739062 (Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Using Genetic Markers in General Practice), which is not on this 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.
Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment Using Genetic Markers in General Practice
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Using AI in Forward-Backward Translation of Questionnaires for Men Invited to Prostate Cancer Screening: Methodological Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Risk-stratified Approach to Implementing Population-based Prostate Cancer Screening in Five Pilot Sites in the European Union: A Protocol for the PRAISE-U Project.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Article
- The acceptability and clinical impact of using polygenic scores for risk-estimation of common cancers in primary care: a systematic review.Journal of community genetics · 2024Review
- Long Non-Coding RNA (lncRNA) RAMS11 Promotes Metastatis and Cell Growth of Prostate Cancer by CBX4 Complex Binding to Top2α.Cancer management and research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer among men in the western world. Genetic lifetime risk assessment could alleviate controversies about prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for early diagnosis.
aimTo determine how men interpret information about their lifetime risk for PC and how this can affect their choice of having a repeated PSA test. DESIGN &
settingA genetic test was offered for assessment of individual PC lifetime risk in general practices in Denmark, with the purpose of promoting appropriate use of PSA testing.
methodParticipants had a genetic lifetime risk assessment for PC diagnosis (either high or normal risk). A month after receiving the result, participants answered a questionnaire about their perceived risk of getting or dying from PC compared with other men, as well as their intentions for repeated PSA testing.
resultsNearly half (44.7%) of 555 participants who received the genetic risk assessment were not aware they had a genetic test. Nevertheless, compared with men with a normal genetic risk, those with high genetic risk reported higher perceived risk for PC (mean difference of 0.74 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.56 to 0.96] on a 5-point scale), higher perceived risk of dying from PC (mean difference of 0.48 [95% CI = 0.29 to 0.66] on a 5-point scale), and increased intention for repeated PSA testing (mean difference of 0.48 [95% CI = 0.30 to 0.65] on a 4-point scale).
conclusionDespite low awareness and/or understanding of the test result, a high genetic risk for PC made participants more aware of their risk, and it increased their intention and probability for repeated PSA testing.
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.