SynthesisBMJ open2022
Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bellmunt Risk Score as a Prognostic Tool in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Survival.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Combined MYC Activation and PTEN Loss Drives Molecular Features of Aggressive Preinvasive Lesions in Mouse Prostate.Molecular cancer research : MCR · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of the Postoperative Advanced Lung Cancer Inflammation Index in Patients with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Article
- PIONEER big data platform for prostate cancer: lessons for advancing future real-world evidence research.Nature reviews. Urology · 2025Review
- Article
- ProsTAV, a clinically useful test in prostate cancer: an extension study.World journal of urology · 2024Observational
- Predictive Models for Assessing Patients' Response to Treatment in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.European urology open science · 2024Review
- Nomogram-based prognostic model construction for progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer in patients with high tumor burden and osseous metastatic prostate cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2024Article
- The Role of P4HB and SOX4 in Prostatic Carcinoma and Their Clinical Significance.Iranian journal of pathology · 2024Article
- Accurate prognosis for localized prostate cancer through coherent voting networks with multi-omic and clinical data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Study on the Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 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
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAs part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa).
designWe performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.
resultsThe search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability.
conclusionMost of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical implications.
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.