ArticlePloS one2026
Disparities in prostate cancer screening practices among general practitioners and urologists (PROSHADE study): A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecent European recommendations promote risk-based, patient-centred screening models that emphasise shared decision-making (SDM) in prostate cancer (PCa) screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Understanding how clinicians apply these practices is essential, particularly given the roles of general practitioners (GPs) and urologists in detection. The aim of this study was to compare the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of GPs and urologists in Spain regarding PSA testing, PCa screening, and SDM implementation.
methodsCross-sectional survey conducted via an online questionnaire. Members of the Spanish Association of Urology (AEU) and the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine (semFYC) were surveyed online. The survey, developed and validated using a modified Delphi process, contained 18 items assessing clinicians' opinions, practices, and knowledge of guidelines. Data from 494 respondents (280 GPs and 214 urologists) were analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to explore differences between specialty, demographics, and screening practices.
resultsUrologists were more likely than GPs to consider PSA testing important (97.2% vs. 83.2%) and useful (96% vs. 44.4%), and to recommend it to relatives (90.4% vs. 44%) (all p < 0.001). They reported to initiate testing earlier (50-59 years: 77.8% vs. 32%) and reported to perform it more frequently (annual testing: 60.7% vs. 45.6%, p < 0.001). GPs reported to more often engaged in SDM when ordering PSA tests (69.7% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). Knowledge of guidelines was higher among urologists (91% vs. 24.1%), yet 75.4% stated that they had not modified practice following updated recommendations.
conclusionsSignificant specialty-based differences exist in PSA testing practices, perceptions, and guideline adherence. Urologists show greater familiarity with recommendations, while GPs reported more patient-centred communication.
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.