ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Hereditary Prostate Cancer Risk Management: An Evidence-Based Summary to Inform Nursing Practice.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify, appraise, and synthesize the best available evidence on hereditary prostate cancer risk management to inform nursing practice. Methods: This evidence summary utilized the standard evidence summary report of Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing, which includes problem establishment, literature retrieval, quality evaluation of the literature, evidence synthesis and grading. Current literatures were systematically searched for the best evidence for the management of genetic risk in prostate cancer in major clinical decision support systems, guideline repositories, systematic review databases, and English and Chinese bibliographic databases from May 2019 to May 2025. Methodological quality was independently appraised by two researchers using AGREE II, JBI critical appraisal tools, and AMSTAR-2 as appropriate. Evidence was synthesized narratively according to JBI evidence summary principles, and recommendation strength was graded using the JBI evidence pre-appraisal and recommendation framework. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Results: A total of 23 publications were included, comprising 4 clinical decision support resources, 10 clinical practice guidelines, 8 expert consensus statements, and 1 systematic review. Thirty-five evidence-based statements were synthesized across 10 key domains: Provision of whole-stage genetic counseling, Purpose of Genetic Testing, Target population for genetic testing, Timing of genetic testing, Testing Methodology of Genetic Testing, Recommended genes associated with prostate cancer for testing, Classification of Genetic Testing Results, Management of Patients with Positive, Negative, or VUS Genetic Test Results and Their Families, Risk Factors for Prostate Cancer, Prostate Cancer Screening Recommendations. Conclusion: This evidence-based summary translates predominantly medical and genetic evidence into a nursing-oriented, continuous, and family-centered risk management framework. It identifies key nursing intervention points in family history assessment, pre-test education, genetic counseling referral, result interpretation support, VUS follow-up, cascade screening, psychosocial support, and long-term coordination for individuals and families at increased hereditary risk for prostate cancer.
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.