ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2026
Association between author specialty and reported outcomes in non-randomized comparisons of prostatectomy versus radiation.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile the ProtecT randomized trial demonstrated comparable oncologic outcomes between radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer, several retrospective studies have reported mixed findings. In this study, we investigated whether non-randomized studies tend to favor RP or RT and assessed whether the specialty of leading authors-urologists or radiation oncologists-correlates with study conclusions.
methodsWe identified non-randomized clinical studies published between 1993 and 2024 that compared RP and RT for localized prostate cancer and reported oncologic outcomes including biochemical, metastasis, and/or survival outcomes. Author specialty was determined based on whether the first and senior authors were affiliated with urology or radiation oncology departments. Studies in which a urologist and radiation oncologist were first and senior authors were excluded. Each study's conclusion was categorized as favoring surgery, favoring radiation, or reporting no conclusive difference in oncologic outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of study conclusions.
resultsA total of 105 studies met inclusion criteria. Nearly half (44%) reported no conclusive difference in outcomes, while 42% favored RP and 14% favored RT. Multivariate analysis showed that use of national databases (P = .01) and urology author specialty (P = .01) predicted conclusions aligning with the author's specialty. In a subgroup excluding studies relying solely on biochemical recurrence-free survival outcomes, author specialty remained associated with conclusions, with urologists more likely to favor RP (P = .006).
conclusionAuthor specialty was associated with the direction of study conclusions. Further research is needed to understand how these patterns may influence interpretation and decision-making in prostate cancer treatment.
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.