The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effect of Verification Bias on Screening for Prostate Cancer by Measurement of Prostate-Specific Antigen
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sensitivity and specificity of a screening test are biased when disease status is not verified in all subjects and when the likelihood of confirmation depends on the test result itself. We assessed the screening characteristics of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement after correction for verification bias. METHODS: Between 1995 and 2001, 6691 men underwent PSA-based screening for prostate cancer. Of these men, 705 (11 percent) subsequently underwent biopsy of the prostate. Under the assumption that the chance of undergoing a biopsy depends only on the PSA-test result and other observed clinical variables, we used a mathematical model to estimate adjusted receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Adjusting for verification bias significantly increased the area under the ROC curve (i.e., the overall diagnostic performance) of the PSA test, as compared with an unadjusted analysis (0.86 vs. 0.69, P<0.001, for men less than 60 years of age; 0.72 vs. 0.62, P=0.008, for men 60 years of age or older). If the threshold PSA value for undergoing biopsy were set at 4.1 ng per milliliter, 82 percent of cancers in younger men and 65 percent of cancers in older men would be missed. A digital rectal examination that is abnormal but not suspicious for cancer does not affect the overall performance characteristics of the test. CONCLUSIONS: A lower threshold level of PSA for recommending prostate biopsy, particularly in younger men, may improve the clinical value of the PSA test.
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
Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias
Begg, C. B., & Greenes, R. A. (1983) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530820 · Cited by 708
Cited by
Risks of testosterone-replacement therapy and recommendations for monitoring.
Rhoden, E. L., & Morgentaler, A. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra022251 · Cited by 705
A systematic review of screening questionnaires for obstructive sleep apnea
Abrishami, A., Khajehdehi, A., & Chung, F. (2010) · Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie · doi:10.1007/s12630-010-9280-x · Cited by 581
Cancer risks in BRCA2 families: estimates for sites other than breast and ovary
van Asperen, C. J., Brohet, R. M., Meijers-Heijboer, E. J., Hoogerbrugge, N., Verhoef, S., Vasen, H. F. A., Ausems, M. G. E. M., Menko, F. H., Gomez Garcia, E. B., Klijn, J. G. M., et al. (2005) · Journal of Medical Genetics · doi:10.1136/jmg.2004.028829 · Cited by 420
Does This Patient Have Dementia?
Holsinger, T., Deveau, J., Boustani, M., & Williams, J. W. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.297.21.2391 · Cited by 305
A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., & Mallett, S. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.014 · Cited by 283
Metadata
- Authors
- Punglia, R. S., D'Amico, A. V., Catalona, W. J., Roehl, K. A., & Kuntz, K. M.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2003-07-24
- Volume
- 349
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 335-342
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2157794801
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 31.31
- 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: Effect of Verification Bias on Screening for Prostate Cancer by Measurement of Prostate-Specific Antigen. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa021659
- The paper
- Punglia, R. S., D'Amico, A. V., Catalona, W. J., Roehl, K. A., & Kuntz, K. M. (2003). Effect of Verification Bias on Screening for Prostate Cancer by Measurement of Prostate-Specific Antigen. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa021659
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.