SynthesisInvestigative and clinical urology2022
Diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen below 4 ng/mL as a cutoff for diagnosing prostate cancer in a hospital setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Investigative and clinical urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen density in patients suspected of having prostate cancer in South Korea: A large, multi-institutional registry.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding prostate cancer and early screening among middle-aged and elderly Chinese men: a cross-sectional study.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Improving Early Prostate Cancer Detection Through Artificial Intelligence: Evidence from a Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Association between periodontitis severity and prostate-specific antigen levels using the NHANES data.Journal of periodontology · 2025Article
- A Proof-of-Concept Study on Bioelectric-Based Biosensing for Prostate-Specific Antigen Detection in Serum Samples.Biosensors · 2025Article
- Article
- New insights on the early prostate cancer diagnosis in a real-world setting.Investigative and clinical urology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeA prostate-specific antigen (PSA) cutoff of 4 ng/mL has been widely used for prostate cancer screening in population-based settings. However, the accuracy of PSA below 4 ng/mL as a cutoff for diagnosing prostate cancer in a hospital setting is inconclusive. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of PSA below 4 ng/mL cutoff in a hospital setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe systematically reviewed the literature by searching major databases until March 2020, and a meta-analysis and quality assessment were performed.
resultsA total of 11 studies were included at the completion of the screening process. The meta-analysis showed a sensitivity of 0.92 and a specificity of 0.16 for a PSA cutoff below 4 ng/mL. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.87, the positive likelihood ratio was 1.23, the negative likelihood ratio was 0.46, and the diagnostic odds ratio was 2.64. PSA sensitivities and specificities varied according to the cutoff range: 0.94 and 0.17 for 2 to 2.99 ng/mL, and 0.92 and 0.16 for 3 to 3.99 ng/mL, respectively. No significant differences in the sensitivity and specificity of PSA cutoffs in the range of 2 to 2.99 ng/mL and 3 to 3.99 ng/mL were found.
conclusionsAlthough a PSA cutoff <3 ng/mL is relatively more sensitive and specific than PSA ≥3 ng/mL, no significant differences in sensitivity and specificity were found in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Therefore, clinicians should choose an appropriate PSA cutoff on the basis of clinical circumstances and patients' characteristics.
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.