ArticleJAMA health forum2022
Evaluation of Prostate Cancer Screening Strategies in a Low-Resource, High-risk Population in the Bahamas.
Article in JAMA health forum, 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.
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prostate Cancer Screening in the UK: A Decision Model Analysis Based on the CAP Trial.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Trial
- Global, regional, and national burden of early-onset prostate cancer, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2021.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Prostate Cancer Screening in Somalia: A Perspective on Addressing a Critical Gap in Early Detection.Research and reports in urology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of prostate-specific antigen screening in China: a middle-income population-based microsimulation study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Article
- Global, regional, and national prevalence of prostate cancer from 1990 to 2021: a trend and health inequality analyses.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Prostate Cancer in the Caribbean.Cureus · 2023Review
- Racial disparities in prostate cancer mortality: a model-based decomposition of contributing factors.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2023Article
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
Abstract
Importance: The benefit of prostate-specific antigen screening may be greatest in high-risk populations, including men of African descent in the Caribbean. However, organized screening may not be sustainable in low- and middle-income countries. Objective: To evaluate the expected population outcomes and resource use of conservative prostate-specific antigen screening programs in the Bahamas. Design Setting and Participants: Prostate cancer incidence from GLOBOCAN and prostate-specific antigen screening data for 4300 men from the Bahamas were used to recalibrate 2 decision analytical models previously used to study prostate-specific antigen screening for Black men in the United States. Data on age and results obtained from prostate-specific antigen screening tests performed in Nassau from 2004 to 2018 and in Freeport from 2013 to 2018 were used. Data were analyzed from January 15, 2021, to March 23, 2022. Interventions: One or 2 screenings for men aged 45 to 60 years and conservative criteria for biopsy (prostate-specific antigen level >10 ng/mL) and curative treatment (Gleason score ≥8) were modeled. Categories of Gleason scores were 6 or lower, 7, and 8 or higher, with higher scores indicating higher risk of cancer progression and death. Main Outcomes and Measures: Projected numbers of tests and biopsies, prostate cancer (over)diagnoses, lives saved, and life-years gained owing to screening from 2022 to 2040. Results: In this decision analytical modeling study, screening histories from 4300 men (median age, 54 years; range, 13-101 years) tested between 2004 and 2018 at 2 sites in the Bahamas were used to inform the models. Screening once at 60 years of age was projected to involve 40 000 to 42 000 tests (range between models) and prevent 500 to 600 of 10 000 to 14 000 prostate cancer deaths. Screening at 50 and 60 years doubled the number of tests but increased lives saved by only 15% to 16%. Among onetime strategies, screening once at 60 years of age involved the fewest tests per life saved (74-84 tests) and curative treatments per life saved (1.2-2.8 treatments). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this decision analytical modeling study of prostate cancer screening in the Bahamas suggest that limited screening offered modest benefits that varied with screening ages and number of tests. The results can be combined with data on capacity constraints and evaluated relative to competing national public health priorities.
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.