ReviewBJUI compass2024
Variation in harms and benefits of prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer by socio-clinical risk factors: A rapid review.
Review in BJUI compass, 2024. 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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Total PSA: Clinical Significance of S2,3PSA% in Reducing Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Review
- Integrated Assessment of Percentage α2,3-Linked Sialylated Prostate-specific Antigen and the Prostate Health Index with Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.European urology open science · 2026Article
- The Effects of the Blood-Based S2,3PSA% Test on Prostate Cancer Screening: A Novel Approach to Reduce the Need for MRI and Unnecessary Biopsies.The Prostate · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Stratification of Prostate Cancer Through Blood-Based Biochemical and Inflammatory Markers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Associations between plasma and urinary heavy metal concentrations and the risk of prostate cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Erratum.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Optimising the use of the prostate- specific antigen blood test in asymptomatic men for early prostate cancer detection in primary care: report from a UK clinical consensus.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Variation in harms and benefits of prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer by socio-clinical risk factors: A rapid review.BJUI compass · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2024
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyse the latest evidence on the relative harms and benefits of screening and diagnostic pathways with close examination of (i) men aged 50 years or older, (ii) men whose ethnicity places them at higher risk and (iii) men with a family history. Methods: We conducted a literature search using PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases and other sources, from January 1990 to 25 January 2023. Two independent reviewers selected for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies which met our inclusion criteria. Results: Twenty-eight articles were selected, from six trials, including the Göteborg trial-reported separately from European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening led to the increased detection of low-grade cancer and reduction of advanced/metastatic disease but had contradictory effects on prostate cancer (PCa)-specific mortality (no difference or reduced), possibly due to issues of contamination or compliance. Screening men from a relatively young age (50-55) reduced risk of PCa-specific mortality in a subanalysis of an 18-year follow-up study and in a 17-year cohort study from the main Göteborg trial. Moreover, one Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial analysis reported a trend of reduced risk of PCa-specific mortality for men with a family history who were screened. [Correction added on 05 March 2024, after first online publication: "Cancer Screening Trial" has been added to the preceding sentence.] However, we did not find relevant studies for ethnicity. Conclusion: Under current UK practice, the choice to conduct a PSA test relies on a shared decision-making approach guided by known risk factors. However, we found there was a lack of strong evidence on the harms and benefits of PSA screening by socio-clinical risk factors and suggest further research is required to understand the long-term impact of screening on high-risk populations in the current diagnostic setting.
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.