ReviewBMC primary care2024
PSA testing in primary care: is it time to change our practice?
Review in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rural-urban disparities in prostate-specific antigen testing and shared decision-making in the US.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Screening policy changes and prostate cancer epidemiology: 20-year trends in diagnosis, treatment, incidence, and mortality.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- 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
- Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Prostate Cancer.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Prostate Cancer Screening Practices Among High-Risk Patients: A Retrospective Analysis.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHistorical prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening studies reduced prostate cancer-related deaths but also led to overdiagnosis/overtreatment. Since then, opportunistic PSA testing has increased, and late-stage diagnoses and prostate-cancer related deaths are rising.
objectivesTo review current trends regarding PSA testing in primary care and propose a collaborative approach to improve early prostate cancer detection. DISCUSSION: Opportunistic PSA testing patterns vary among General Practitioners (GPs) and Family Doctors (FDs) based on differing guidelines, patient pressure, time constraints and personal views/preferences. However, an organised, risk-adapted strategy, as outlined by the European Association of Urology's guidelines, could facilitate the early diagnosis of significant prostate cancer whilst sparing those unlikely to experience disease-related symptoms from further tests (overdiagnosis) as well as the psychosocial consequences of a cancer diagnosis. This could be achieved by the introduction of national prostate cancer screening programmes, which has been endorsed in the European Commission's publication of the EU Cancer Screening Recommendations. In this scenario, GPs/FDs would still play an important role in supporting men throughout the decision pathway. However, as some men may still request a PSA test from their GP/FD, patient information as well as clear guidance and support to GPs/FDs are needed, including appropriate skills training to facilitate effective counselling and informed decision-making, and the use of risk calculators to inform referral decisions.
conclusionGPs/FDs play an important role in counselling healthy men eligible to consider PSA testing. However, clear guidance, training and support is required for them to assume this role.
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.