ArticleUrologic oncology2023
Clinician interest in clinical decision support for PSA-based prostate cancer screening.
Article in Urologic oncology, 2023. 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 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Why aren't they used? Systematic review of barriers to implementation of clinical decision support systems for early cancer detection in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Pooled it
- The implementation challenge of computerised clinical decision support systems for the detection of disease in primary care: systematic review and recommendations.Implementation science : IS · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening within primary health care settings in Portugal: a cross-sectional study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the interest of primary care clinicians in utilizing CDS for PSA screening. Evidence suggests that electronic clinical decision support (CDS) may decrease low-value prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. However, physician attitudes towards CDS for PSA screening are largely unknown.
methodsA survey was sent to 201 primary care clinicians, including both physicians and Advanced Practice Providers (APP), within a large academic health system. Eligible clinicians cared for male patients aged 40 to 80 years and ordered ≥5 PSA tests in the past year. Respondents were stratified into 3 groups, appropriate screeners, low-value screeners, or rare-screeners, based on responses to survey questions assessing PSA screening practices. The degree of interest in electronic CDS was determined via a composite Likert score comprising relevant survey items.
resultsSurvey response rate was 29% (59/201) consisting of 85% MD/DO and 15% APP respondents. All clinicians surveyed were interested in CDS (P < 0.001) without significant difference between screener groups. Clinicians agreed most uniformly that CDS be evidence-based. Clinicians disagreed on whether CDS would decrease professional discretion over patient decisions.
conclusionsPrimary care clinicians are interested in CDS for PSA screening regardless of their current screening practices. Prioritizing CDS features that clinicians value, such as ensuring CDS recommendations are evidence-based, may increase the likelihood of successful implementation, whereas perceived threat to autonomy may be a hinderance to utilization.
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.