ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2024
Perspectives and Misconceptions of an Online Adult Male Cohort Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 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.
- Understanding Drivers of Prostate Cancer Screening in Mexican-Origin Men Along the U.S./Mexico Border Region.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCongruent with most guideline publishers, the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) recommends shared decision-making (SDM) on PSA screening (PSAS) for prostate cancer (PCa) following a discussion of its benefits and harms. However, there are limited data on how the general male population feels about these topics.
methodsA survey was completed by 906 male-identifying participants (age > 18) recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which is a crowdsourcing platform providing minimal compensation. Participants answered questions regarding demographics (15), personal/family history (9), PCa/PSA knowledge (41), and opinions regarding PSAS (45).
resultsThe median age was 38.2 (SD = 12.0), with 22% reporting a family history of PCa and 20% reporting personally undergoing PSAS. Although most participants had heard of PCa (85%) and that they could be screened for it (81%), they generally did not feel knowledgeable about PCa or PSAS guidelines. Most want to talk to their clinician about PCa and PSAS (74%) and are supportive of SDM (48%) or patient-centered decision-making (25%). In general, participants thought PSAS was still worthwhile, even if it led to additional testing or side effects. Similarly, participants thought higher-risk patients should be screened earlier (
conclusionsMen approaching the age of PSAS do not feel knowledgeable about PCa or PSAS and want their clinician to discuss these topics with them. The majority believe in PSAS and would like to undergo this screening following SDM. Clinicians also have a role in correcting common misconceptions about PCa.
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.