ArticleAfrican health sciences2020
Does shared decision making increase prostate screening uptake in countries with a low prevalence of prostate cancer?
Article in African health sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shared Decision-Making in Dialysis Modality Selection Among Adults with Advanced Kidney Disease in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening within primary health care settings in Portugal: a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Article
- Shared decision-making before prostate cancer screening decisions.Nature reviews. Urology · 2024Review
- Editor's choice: this December 2020.African health sciences · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMen over 50 should discuss the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing with their doctors.
objectivesTo investigate whether shared decision making (SDM) increases the uptake of prostate cancer screening practices among Saudi men.
methodsThis community-based study recruited men aged ≥ 50 years between January and April 2019. Sociodemographic characteristics, history, and current medical condition information were collected. SDM information with regards to prostate cancer screening was discussed.
resultsIn total, 2034 Saudi men, aged between 50 and 88 years, agreed to participate in the current study. Prostate examination for early detection of cancer was recommended for 35.4% (720) of subjects. Of the subjects, 23.3% (473) reported that the physicians discussed the advantages and benefits of PSA testing, whereas only 5.6% (114) stated that the physicians explained the disadvantages and drawbacks of PSA testing.
conclusionOur findings suggest that less than one fourth discussed the advantages and disadvantages of PSA testing with their physicians; of these, less than one third underwent PSA blood tests. Improvements are needed in SDM for and against PSA screening. SDM does not affect the intensity of PSA testing. Primary health care physicians should be actively involved in the SDM process.
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.