ArticleANZ journal of surgery2025
Lessons from the implementation of the Australian 2016 prostate specific antigen testing clinical practice guidelines: a descriptive study.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn 2025, prostate cancer is the most common cancer in Australia, regardless of gender, and is the second most common cause of cancer death despite the opportunities for cure. In 2016, Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing were published to improve early detection and management of prostate cancer. This study reports on a public consultation into the implementation and impact of these guidelines on prostate cancer diagnosis and outcomes.
methodsThematic analysis of responses from a public consultation conducted in accordance with best-practice guideline development processes. A national Call for Submissions, using a coordinated public notification strategy, was made, inviting consumers with an interest in PSA testing for prostate cancer to share their experiences via an online platform. Seven questions were posed to all respondents.
resultsConsumers described the 2016 Guidelines as ineffective based on negative message framing, lack of uptake of the guidelines by key primary care groups, and low community awareness. Although a small number of men reported that they were able to access early detection and subsequent curative treatment, the majority of men reported missed opportunities for testing, resulting in diagnoses with late-stage disease. Suggestions for future successful implementation included a consumer companion to the guidelines, regular guideline review, a national education and awareness program, and targeted education for health professionals.
conclusionsAustralia's future response to the growing burden of prostate cancer rests on key stakeholders across the health system to ensure alignment and compliance with updated Guidelines. Effective implementation of such guidelines in the future requires a well-resourced education and awareness program for both the lay and clinician communities, and consistency in adoption and practice across key medical groups.
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.