Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36419456›Full record

ArticleUrology practice2022

Testicular Cancer Knowledge and Viewpoints of American Men.

Sarah Beebe, Alicia Scimeca, Dinah Diab, Nathan C Wong, Tasha Posid, Shawn Dason

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Urology practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sarah BeebeDepartment of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Alicia ScimecaDepartment of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Dinah DiabDepartment of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Nathan C WongDepartment of Urology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York.
Tasha PosidDepartment of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Shawn DasonDepartment of Urology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: We sought to better understand the baseline knowledge and practices of the general population regarding testicular cancer (TC) and testicular self-examination (TSE) in an effort to understand whether current screening guidelines reflect their viewpoint. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) currently recommends against TSE for TC screening due to a lack of data to support a benefit. Early detection of TC may reduce the required burden of therapy and associated long-term toxicities. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey study. Participants (median age 33 years, IQR 28-39) were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk, a validated crowdsourcing platform used to recruit minimally compensated participants. Results: A total of 250 men rated themselves as "somewhat unknowledgeable" about TC, with no respondents considering themselves "very knowledgeable." Only 26.4% of men knew that TC was curable most of the time. Despite 90.8% of men feeling that their doctor had some role in discussing TC/TSE, only 17.2% had discussed these topics with their doctor. Even after being informed of the rationale behind USPSTF recommendations, only 8% of men thought that potential false positives of TSE would be more important than the rare chance of finding early TC. Conclusions: American men do not feel knowledgeable about TC, have a favorable attitude toward TSE and want their doctor to discuss these topics. Shared decision making regarding TC screening is warranted given the low risk of harm and patient interest, and continued accrual of data on this topic is necessary given the lack of prospective work to date.

Indexed as

early detection of cancerself-examinationtesticular neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID36419456
PMCPMC9661737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.