The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Empiric risk of prostate carcinoma for relatives of patients with prostate carcinoma: A meta–analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Although narrative reviews have concluded that there is strong support for familial clustering of prostate carcinoma, the association has never systematically been quantified in reviews. The purpose of this meta–analysis was to summarize and quantify the recurrence risk ratio with emphasis on the degree of relation, the specific relationship of the family member, the number of affected family members, and the age at diagnosis. METHODS: Publications were identified through computerized database searches for epidemiologic studies published up to December 2002. In addition, references cited in original and review papers were examined. Three blinded reviewers extracted both qualitative and quantitative information from each paper. Using random effects meta–regression analyses, the authors calculated summary recurrence risk ratios (Sλ). The reviewers also evaluated changes in Sλ according to differences in study methodology. RESULTS: Thirty–three epidemiologic studies were included in the current review. Sλ was 2.53 (95% confidence interval, 2.24–2.85) for first–degree family members. Sλ appeared to be greater for men with an affected brother than for men with an affected father. Sλ for men who had second–degree relatives with prostate carcinoma was only slightly elevated. The nature of the familial clustering is such that Sλ increases with decreasing age of the patient and family members, with increasing genetic relatedness of the affected relative, and with increasing number of individuals affected within a family. CONCLUSIONS: The studies that were reviewed consistently demonstrate that family history is a significant risk factor for development of prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2003;97:1894–903. © 2003 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11262
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cancer Incidence in Five Continents
(1966) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85849-9 · Cited by 5,936
Familial factors affecting prostatic cancer risk and plasma sex-steroid levels
Wayne Meikle, A., Smith, J. A., & West, D. W. (1985) · The Prostate · doi:10.1002/pros.2990060202 · Cited by 110
Cited by
A meta-analysis of observational studies identifies predictors of sickness absence
Duijts, S. F. A., Kant, I., Swaen, G. M. H., van den Brandt, P. A., & Zeegers, M. P. A. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.04.008 · Cited by 284
Self-citationEvidence-based management of incidental focal uptake of fluorodeoxyglucose on PET-CT
Pencharz, D., Nathan, M., & Wagner, T. L. (2018) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.20170774 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Zeegers, M. P. A., Jellema, A., & Ostrer, H.
- Venue
- Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-04
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1894-1903
- ISSN
- 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0142
- OpenAlex
- W2438300343
- Cited by
- 223
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Empiric risk of prostate carcinoma for relatives of patients with prostate carcinoma: A meta–analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.11262
- The paper
- Zeegers, M. P. A., Jellema, A., & Ostrer, H. (2003). Empiric risk of prostate carcinoma for relatives of patients with prostate carcinoma: A meta–analysis. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11262
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.