ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Patients and general practitioner knowledge and perception of testicular self-examination for cancer.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- From declared interest to non-participation: a feasibility study of a multi-stage testicular cancer prevention intervention among young men.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTesticular cancer (TC) predominantly affects young men and early detection enhances survival. However, uncertainty surrounds the impact of population-wide screening. Testicular self-examination (TSE) is a simple detection method but there is a gap in current practices that needs to be assessed. Our goal was to assess the perceptions and knowledge of male subjects in the general population (MP) and general practitioners (GPs) regarding TSE for TC.
methodsTwo distinct surveys evaluating knowledge and perceptions of TSE for TC were administered to GPs and MP, aged 15‒45-years. Factors that could favour the realisation of TSE or improve the knowledge of TC were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression.
resultsOverall, 1048 GPs (mean (SD) age: 35.1 ± 10.3 years) and 1032 MP (mean (SD) age: 27 ± 8.2 years) answered the survey. Among the GPs, only 93 (8.9%) performed scrotal examination for TC screening. Although the majority (n = 993, 94.8%) were aware of the age of onset of TC, most (n = 768, 73.3%) did not know the overall survival rate from TC. GPs familiar with the guidelines were more likely to explain TSE to their patients (OR = 2.5 [95% CI 1.5‒4.1]; p < 0.01). Among the MP, 800 (77.5%) admitted that they did not know how to perform TSE and 486 (47.1%) did not know the main symptoms associated with TC. MP who had already undergone TC screening were more likely to be familiar with the main symptoms (OR = 2.1 [95% CI 1.6‒2.7]; p < 0.001) and MP who knew someone with TC or who had already undergone TC screening were more likely to be aware of the correct prevalence of TC (OR = 1.9 [95% CI 1.3‒2.7], p < 0.01; and OR = 1.6 [95% CI 1.2‒2.1], p < 0.01; respectively).
conclusionThe knowledge of both GPs and MP regarding TC could be improved. TSE screening and knowing someone close with TC improved the awareness of our subjects.
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.