ReviewAdvances in laboratory medicine2020
Towards personalized prostate cancer screening.
Review in Advances in laboratory medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinicopathological Analysis of Prostate Cancer in Young Men: Experience of a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Western Romania.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of cfDNA Concentration and Fragmentation in Prostate Cancer.The Prostate · 2026Article
- Prostate-specific antigen: An unfamiliar protein in the human salivary glands.Journal of anatomy · 2024Article
- Detection and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer Using Blood-Based Biomarkers.Mediators of inflammation · 2020Review
- HOXB13 and TFF3 can contribute to the prognostic stratification of prostate adenocarcinoma.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The value of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancer (PCa) screening is controversial. Contradictory results have been reported in the literature as to whether PSA-based screening reduces mortality. Also, some of the studies published are methodologically flawed. However, evidence consistently demonstrates that screening programs results in the identification of patients with indolent prostatic tumors which rate has increased. Controversy is not only about the value of PSA-based screening, but also about the age range for screening, risk groups based on baseline PSA, PSA ranges, or the use of other biomarkers (PHI, 4Kscore). At present, PCa screening in the general population is not recommended by most scientific societies, although it can be used after discussing the risks and benefits with the patient. When discussing the need to perform a screening, the risks of using screening (lack of specificity of PSA, overdiagnosis) must be weighed against the risks of not performing it (increased rate of patients with initial diagnosis of metastasis). In the recent years, a number of authors have advocated the use of personalized screening, which could change the risk/benefit evaluation, thereby making screening necessary on the basis of a set of individual factors.
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.