ArticleCancer medicine2025
Prostate Cancer Patients' Perceptions Regarding the Relevance of a Digital Rectal Examination During Their Follow-Up After Radiation Therapy.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. 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.
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProstate cancer is an example of the undervaluation of clinical examinations in care of patients. After external radiotherapy, cancer recurrence is primarily determined biologically by measuring prostate-specific antigen concentration. Consequently, there is no systematic requirement for the digital rectal examination (DRE). Nevertheless, research has shown that patients attach both practical and symbolic significance to being examined by their physicians. This study aimed to assess how patients perceive DRE omission after prostate cancer radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a survey of 107 men in remission after radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the Radiotherapy Oncology Department of Bordeaux University Hospital, France. The aim of the survey was to assess the significance that patients place on undergoing a DRE as part of their follow-up care, both from a practical perspective (medical relevance) and a symbolic perspective (influence on the perception of the treating radiation oncologist).
resultsDespite receiving information on the lack of relevance of DRE during follow-up, 40 of the 100 respondents still perceived a practical benefit of undergoing DRE (pragmatic dimension). On a symbolic level, many patients associated the performance of DRE by their radiotherapy oncologist with impressions of competence, concern for their health and concern for them personally (61%, 63% and 64%, respectively). Although the correlations between the pragmatic and symbolic dimensions were significant, more than one-third of patients who understood the lack of clinical relevance of DRE still attributed symbolic value to it.
conclusionsA positive perception of DRE persists among patients, mainly at the symbolic level, including a proportion of patients who understand the low clinical utility of DRE. Importantly, the persistence of these perceptions regarding DRE should not be misconstrued as justification for performing pelvic examinations without clear clinical reasons.
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.