ReviewCurrent urology reports2024
Digital Rectal Exam in Prostate Cancer Screening and Elevated PSA Work-up-Is there a role anymore?
Review in Current urology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital rectal exam vs. electronic "digitized" prostate exam.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Does the digital rectal exam still provide value in the age of MRI?Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Low Rates of Digital Rectal Exam in an Academic Health System Represent a Missed Opportunity.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Ten-Year Trends in Digital Rectal Exam Results and Prostate Cancer Detection: Insights from the PLCO Trial.Research and reports in urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewProstate cancer (PCa) screening tools, particularly digital rectal examination (DRE), are under scrutiny. This review assesses the utility of DRE in PCa screening. RECENT
findingsRecent studies reaffirm the DRE's sensitivity and specificity, a higher PCa detection rate with PSA in conjunction with DRE, and a slightly elevated risk of clinically significant PCa (CSPC) in those with elevated PSA and suspicious DRE. Studies confirm high accuracy of MRI in identifying CSPC, with ongoing research exploring its screening potential. DRE alone lacks accuracy for PCa screening, often resulting in missed diagnoses and unnecessary biopsies. Its supplementary use with PSA marginally increases detection rates of identifying a small percentage of CSPC, but the benefit remains questionable. Emerging evidence suggests MRI has the potential as a superior screening tool compared to DRE, although direct comparative studies are lacking. Overall, the DRE has a limited role in current PCa screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38869693What 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.