Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38575181›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2024

Acceptability of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis with patients and GPs: a qualitative interview study.

Samuel Wd Merriel, Stephanie Archer, Alice S Forster, David Eldred-Evans, John S McGrath, Hashim U Ahmed, Willie Hamilton, Fiona M Walter

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The Acceptability of Diagnostic Tests in the United Kingdom.Patient preference and adherence · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Samuel Wd MerrielCentre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester; Department of Health and Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter.ORCID 0000-0003-2919-9087
Stephanie ArcherDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge; Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.ORCID 0000-0003-1349-7178
Alice S ForsterOur Future Health, London.ORCID 0000-0002-9933-7919
David Eldred-EvansDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London.ORCID 0000-0002-6861-8160
John S McGrathDepartment of Urological Surgery, Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter.ORCID 0000-0001-9416-9912
Hashim U AhmedDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London.ORCID 0000-0003-1674-6723
Willie HamiltonDepartment of Health and Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter.ORCID 0000-0003-1611-1373
Fiona M WalterWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London.ORCID 0000-0002-7191-6476
Imperial College London · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBFuture Science Group (United Kingdom) · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBRoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate is a new, more accurate, non-invasive test for prostate cancer diagnosis.

aimTo understand the acceptability of MRI for patients and GPs for prostate cancer diagnosis. DESIGN AND

settingQualitative study of men who had undergone a prostate MRI for possible prostate cancer, and GPs who had referred at least one man for possible prostate cancer in the previous 12 months in West London and Devon.

methodSemi-structured interviews, conducted in person or via telephone, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Deductive thematic analysis was undertaken using Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability, retrospectively for patients and prospectively for GPs.

resultsTwenty-two men (12 from Devon, age range 47-80 years), two patients' partners, and 10 GPs (6 female, age range 36-55 years) were interviewed. Prostate MRI was broadly acceptable for most patient participants, and they reported that it was not a significant undertaking to complete the scan. GPs were more varied in their views on prostate MRI, with a broad spectrum of knowledge and understanding of prostate MRI. Some GPs expressed concerns about additional clinical responsibility and local availability of MRI if direct access to prostate MRI in primary care were to be introduced.

conclusionProstate MRI appears to be acceptable to patients. Some differences were found between patients in London and Devon, mainly around burden of testing and opportunity costs. Further exploration of GPs' knowledge and understanding of prostate MRI could inform future initiatives to widen access to diagnostic testing in primary care.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingPatient Acceptance of Health CareProstatic NeoplasmsQualitative ResearchAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleGeneral PracticeGeneral PractitionersHumansLondonMaleMiddle Ageddiagnosis acceptabilitydiagnostic techniques and proceduresmagnetic resonance imagingprimary health careprostateprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID38575181
PMCPMC11005921
OpenAlexW4388021338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.