ArticleScientific reports2024
Prostate-specific antigen testing in the United States during 2008-2022 in relation to the US preventive services task force recommendations.
Article in Scientific 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.
- 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
- Identifying drug targets and evaluating KLK3-targeted inhibitors for prostate cancer using in-silico and in-vitro approaches.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing has consistently fallen for several years. This study explored how the decreasing trend differs by selected variables and reasons for taking the PSA test. Analyses involved men, aged 40 years or older, who completed the Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey in even number years from 2008 through 2022. Trends in PSA testing rates within the past year declined by 46% from 2008 to 2020 and then increased 21% from 2020 to 2022. The greatest changes corresponded with the years of new USPSTF guidelines. Declining PSA testing rates occurred across the levels of all variables considered but were more pronounced in younger men and men never married, less educated, and without health care coverage. After adjusting for these variables, declining PSA testing rates did not significantly differ between racial/ethnic groups or between income groups. The level of several variables influenced the decline, as a function of perceived risk, accessibility, and desire for the test. Inconsistencies with the USPSTF's guidelines were seen in higher PSA testing in older and more educated men. The distribution of main reasons for taking the test (part of a routine exam [72%], prostate problem/cancer [12%], family history [6%], and other [10%]) remained constant. PSA testing as part of a routine exam (vs. no PSA test) increased with age and was higher in non-Hispanic Blacks, married (or cohabitating), and in men with higher education, higher income, and health care coverage. PSA testing because of a prostate problem/cancer or family history of prostate cancer according to these variables are also described in this study.
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.