The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA Guideline
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: The guideline purpose is to provide the urologist with a framework for the early detection of prostate cancer in asymptomatic average risk men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and summarized evidence derived from over 300 studies that addressed the predefined outcomes of interest (prostate cancer incidence/mortality, quality of life, diagnostic accuracy and harms of testing). In addition to the quality of evidence, the panel considered values and preferences expressed in a clinical setting (patient-physician dyad) rather than having a public health perspective. Guideline statements were organized by age group in years (age <40; 40 to 54; 55 to 69; ≥ 70). RESULTS: Except prostate specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening, there was minimal evidence to assess the outcomes of interest for other tests. The quality of evidence for the benefits of screening was moderate, and evidence for harm was high for men age 55 to 69 years. For men outside this age range, evidence was lacking for benefit, but the harms of screening, including over diagnosis and overtreatment, remained. Modeled data suggested that a screening interval of two years or more may be preferred to reduce the harms of screening. CONCLUSIONS: The Panel recommended shared decision-making for men age 55 to 69 years considering PSA-based screening, a target age group for whom benefits may outweigh harms. Outside this age range, PSA-based screening as a routine could not be recommended based on the available evidence.
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
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., Meerpohl, J., & Norris, S. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 · Cited by 8,285
The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus
Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/pdz9-th90 · Cited by 4,500
Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., Cording, E., Tomson, D., Dodd, C., Rollnick, S., et al. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6 · Cited by 4,405
Self-citationCharles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137
Shared decision making — The pinnacle of patient-centered care
Barry, M. J., & Edgman-Levitan, S. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1109283 · Cited by 3,433
Self-citation
Cited by
DNA-Repair Defects and Olaparib in Metastatic Prostate Cancer
Mateo, J., Carreira, S., Sandhu, S., Miranda, S., Mossop, H., Perez-Lopez, R., Nava Rodrigues, D., Robinson, D., Omlin, A., Tunariu, N., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1506859 · Cited by 2,185
A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane's framework
Cook, D. A., Brydges, R., Ginsburg, S., & Hatala, R. (2015) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12678 · Cited by 554
Zhou, C. K., Check, D. P., Lortet‐Tieulent, J., Laversanne, M., Jemal, A., Ferlay, J., Bray, F., Cook, M. B., & Devesa, S. S. (2016) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.29894 · Cited by 322
Lifestyle Medicine: A Brief Review of Its Dramatic Impact on Health and Survival
Bodai, B. I., Nakata, T. E., Wong, W. T., Clark, D. R., Lawenda, S., Tsou, C., Liu, R., Shiue, L., Cooper, N., Rehbein, M., et al. (2018) · The Permanente Journal · doi:10.7812/tpp/17-025 · Cited by 253
Owens, O. L., Felder, T., Tavakoli, A. S., Revels, A. A., Friedman, D. B., Hughes-Halbert, C., & Hébert, J. R. (2019) · American Journal of Health Promotion · doi:10.1177/0890117118786866 · Cited by 65
Metadata
- Authors
- Carter, H. B., Albertsen, P. C., Barry, M. J., Etzioni, R., Freedland, S. J., Greene, K. L., Holmberg, L., Kantoff, P., Konety, B. R., Murad, M. H., Penson, D. F., & Zietman, A. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Urology
- Published
- 2013-08
- Volume
- 190
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 419-426
- ISSN
- 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-3792
- OpenAlex
- W2073117151
- Cited by
- 1,242
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 119.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.
