Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 517

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prostate Specific Antigen Best Practice Statement: 2009 Update

Greene, Kirsten L., Albertsen, Peter C., Babaian, Richard J., Carter, H. Ballentine, Gann, Peter H., Han, Misop, Kuban, Deborah Ann, Sartor, A. Oliver, Stanford, Janet L., Zietman, Anthony, Carroll, Peter·2009·Journal of Urology

Abstract

PURPOSE: We provide current information on the use of PSA testing for the evaluation of men at risk for prostate cancer, and the risks and benefits of early detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The report is a summary of the American Urological Association PSA Best Practice Policy 2009. The summary statement is based on a review of the current professional literature, clinical experience and the expert opinions of a multispecialty panel. It is intended to serve as a resource for physicians, other health care professionals, and patients. It does not establish a fixed set of guidelines, define the legal standard of care or pre-empt physician judgment in individual cases. RESULTS: There are two notable differences in the current policy. First, the age for obtaining a baseline PSA has been lowered to 40 years. Secondly, the current policy no longer recommends a single, threshold value of PSA, which should prompt prostate biopsy. Rather, the decision to proceed to prostate biopsy should be based primarily on PSA and DRE results, but should take into account multiple factors including free and total PSA, patient age, PSA velocity, PSA density, family history, ethnicity, prior biopsy history and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Although recently published trials show different results regarding the impact of prostate cancer screening on mortality, both suggest that prostate cancer screening leads to overdetection and overtreatment of some patients. Therefore, men should be informed of the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening before biopsy and the option of active surveillance in lieu of immediate treatment for certain men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.093

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 517

Metadata

Authors
Greene, K. L., Albertsen, P. C., Babaian, R. J., Carter, H. B., Gann, P. H., Han, M., Kuban, D. A., Sartor, A. O., Stanford, J. L., Zietman, A., & Carroll, P.
Venue
Journal of Urology
Published
2009-11
Volume
182
Issue
5
Pages
2232-2241
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
OpenAlex
W2136804662
Cited by
517
References
4
FWCI
57.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Prostate Specific Antigen Best Practice Statement: 2009 Update. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.093
The paper
Greene, K. L., Albertsen, P. C., Babaian, R. J., Carter, H. B., Gann, P. H., Han, M., Kuban, D. A., Sartor, A. O., Stanford, J. L., Zietman, A., & Carroll, P. (2009). Prostate Specific Antigen Best Practice Statement: 2009 Update. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.093

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.