Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39927107›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

Monitoring of prostate cancer screening in the European Union: development of key performance indicators through the PRAISE-U project.

Deependra Singh, Andre L Carvalho, Isabel Mosquera, Josep Vilaseca, Ausvydas Patasius, Gintare Miksiene, Krzysztof Tupikowski, Ángel Gómez Amorín, Marina Tarrazo Antelo, Montserrat Corujo Quinteiro and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Prostate cancer in Nigeria: a scoping review and meta-analysis of current evidence on process indicators and interventions.European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. [Current status of prostate cancer screening research].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Deependra SinghEarly Detection, Prevention, and Infections Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Andre L CarvalhoEarly Detection, Prevention, and Infections Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Isabel MosqueraEarly Detection, Prevention, and Infections Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Josep VilasecaAlthaia, Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Spain.
Ausvydas PatasiusInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Gintare MiksieneInstitute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Krzysztof TupikowskiLower Silesian Center for Oncology, Pulmonology and Hematology, Wrocław, Poland.
Ángel Gómez AmorínService for Population Screening Programmes, Ministry of Health, San Lázaro, Spain.
Marina Tarrazo AnteloService for Population Screening Programmes, Ministry of Health, San Lázaro, Spain.
Montserrat Corujo QuinteiroService for Population Screening Programmes, Ministry of Health, San Lázaro, Spain.
David GalvinUniversity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Brian SheridanDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Eveline HeijnsdijkDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Roderick C N van den BerghDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Monique J RoobolDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Lionne D F VenderbosDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Sarah CollenEuropean Association of Urology, Policy Office, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Hendrik van PoppelEuropean Association of Urology, Policy Office, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Partha BasuEarly Detection, Prevention, and Infections Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Arunah ChandranEarly Detection, Prevention, and Infections Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
PRAISE-U consortium

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Monitoring and evaluation of prostate cancer (PCa) screening is key to ensure that the programme achieves the desired objectives. Utilizing a set of prioritized, feasible and harmonized key performance indicators (KPIs) is crucial for this purpose. We describe the methodology used to identify the PCa screening KPIs and the outcome of this process within the scope of the EU-funded PRostate cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the EU (PRAISE-U) project. Feasibility of implementing these KPIs will be evaluated in the five pilots set up at multiple sites in the EU (Spain-2 sites, Poland, Ireland, Lithuania). Methods: The indicators were developed following a structured methodology involving the following steps: (i) Development of a specific conceptual framework for PCa screening is adapted from the existing risk-based algorithms and modified to guide the selection and mapping of indicators (from identification of population eligible for screening to the decision for treatment or follow-up), (ii) Scoping review of literature (coverage from 1971 to June 2023) to identify existing performance indicators for PCa screening to adapt to the new framework with redefining the indicators, where necessary, (iii) Survey among experts (October-November 2023) to select the indicators fulfilling pre-determined criteria such as accuracy of definition and calculation, importance, and feasibility, and (iv) Deliberations among experts to list the finalized set of indicators, held in December 2023. Findings: A total of 63 KPIs were selected for review using the step-wise methodology as described earlier. Following the review, survey, and deliberations, 21 KPIs were finalized to be piloted in the PRAISE-U project. The resulting 21 KPIs cover the different phases of the screening programme, including invitation, screening test, risk stratification, diagnosis, and also on treatment, harms, and impact. Each KPI has been defined with agreed numerator and denominator. Interpretation: Continuous monitoring of PCa screening programmes using the KPIs will serve as a powerful tool for optimizing service delivery, programme improvement, comparison per screening site, and ultimately contributing to a better benefit to harm ratio. The KPIs will be implemented in five pilot sites identified to be included in the PRAISE-U project aiming to identify an evidence-based scalable model for risk adapted PCa screening for Europe. Funding: This project has received funding from the EU4Health program under grant agreement 101101217, co-funded by the European Union.

Indexed as

Key performance indicatorsProgramme evaluationProstate cancerScreening

Identifiers

PMID39927107
PMCPMC11804572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.