ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Prostate Cancer Screening: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices by Medical Doctors in Portugal.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. 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.
- Emerging biomarkers in prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment: Insights into genetic, RNA and metabolic markers (Review).International journal of oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Opportunistic prostate cancer (PCa) screening is common worldwide, with physicians playing an important role in its uptake and consequences. This study explores the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of family doctors and urologists in Portugal regarding PCa screening. A national online survey was conducted between November 2020 and February 2021. Family doctors and urologists were reached by email through their national medical associations, for a total of 596 and 63 participants from each group, respectively. Urologists considered themselves more updated with PCa screening practices than family doctors (93.0% vs. 73.1%; p < 0.001). Family doctors were more likely to consider older age (97.2% vs. 90.9%; p = 0.025) and smoking (80.6% vs. 31.7%; p < 0.001) as risk factors for PCa. Most urologists reported following the European Association of Urology Guidelines for PCa screening (90.9%), while family doctors preferred the National Guidelines (73.9%). A higher proportion of urologists believed early diagnosis is essential for improving PCa prognosis (92.9% vs. 67.9%; p < 0.001). Urologists were more likely to recommend prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for age group-eligible males (always or almost always: 77.2% vs. 20.4%; p < 0.001) and to perform digital rectal examination (never or rarely: 3.5% vs. 96.2%; p < 0.001). Overall, 65.1% of doctors believed that magnetic resonance imaging could improve the diagnosis of PCa in patients with high PSA levels. Family doctors and urologists differed in their knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding PCa screening. The latter are more interventive and believe more in the benefits of PCa screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40533657What 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.