ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
The Effectiveness and Harms of PSA-Based Prostate Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Beyond PSA-Can Systemic Inflammatory Indices Improve Prostate Cancer Detection?Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Observational
- Methylation-based signature to distinguish indolent and aggressive prostate cancer.Biology open · 2025Article
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
objectivesProstate cancer's prevalence is rapidly increasing in Korea, with incidence rates rising by over 13% annually since 2017 according to the Korea Central Cancer Registry, highlighting the need for effective early detection strategies. This study systematically reviews the benefits and harms of PSA-based prostate cancer screening, focusing on its clinical effectiveness and public health implications.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched five databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and KMbase) for studies from 2014 to 2024. The eligible studies included RCTs, cohort studies, meta-analyses, and guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. We synthesized our findings narratively due to their methodological heterogeneity.
resultsSixteen studies were included. PSA screening reduced prostate-cancer-specific mortality by 20-31%, as reported in multiple randomized controlled trials, such as ERSPC and ProScreen, among men aged 55-69, but showed minimal impact on all-cause mortality. Advanced tools such as MRI and multi-biomarker models, which were implemented in several included studies, enhanced diagnostic accuracy. The potential harms included overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and psychological distress. Community-based education and shared decision-making, inferred from observational and implementation studies, improved participation and equity in screening.
conclusionsPSA-based screening offers modest mortality benefits but carries the risk of overdiagnosis. Precision diagnostics and risk-stratified strategies improve screening outcomes. Public health approaches, particularly those led by nurses and community health workers, are essential to promoting informed, equitable screening decisions.
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.