ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2026
Psychological distress in prostate cancer Validation of the K10 scale using a crossover randomized clinical trial.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 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.
- Urinary and sexual function do not mediate psychological distress reduction in the PC-PEP randomized controlled trial A secondary mediation analysis.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMen diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) experience substantial psychological distress. Despite this, the use of screening tools in this population is limited and understudied. This study evaluates the validity of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) as a psychological distress screening tool in men undergoing curative PCa treatment.
methodsParticipants in a PCa psychological distress prevention program (n=128) were assessed at baseline, six months, and 12 months using the K10. Exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) examined the scale's factor structure. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses evaluated sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for depression and anxiety. Logistic regression assessed the impact of cutoffs on clinical psychological distress.
resultsEFA identified a single-factor structure (factor loadings: 0.59-0.96, variance explained: 76%). CFA confirmed model-fit (comparative fit index 0.905; standardized root mean square residual 0.042). ROC analysis demonstrated excellent predictive ability (area under the curve [AUC] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.0 for depression; 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-0.98 for anxiety). Youden's index suggested K10 thresholds of ≥17.5 (depression) and ≥16.5 (anxiety), although these cutoffs lacked sensitivity. With standard K10≥20 cutoffs, significant differences were observed between intervention and control groups at six months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.59, 95% CI 1.12-11.51, p=0.031) and 12 months (aOR 4.41, 95% CI 1.35-4.41, p=0.014), consistent with prior findings.
conclusionsThe K10 is valid and reliable for this population, demonstrating excellent internal consistency; however, lower cutoffs (K10≥16.5, K10≥17.5) may reduce sensitivity. The standard K10≥20 threshold remains preferable for detecting distress and evaluating intervention effects in men with PCa.
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.