The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases including Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, abstract proceedings, and reference lists up to July 2010. Review methods Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing screening by prostate specific antigen with or without digital rectal examination versus no screening. Data abstraction and assessment of methodological quality with the GRADE approach was assessed by two independent reviewers and verified by the primary investigator. Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance estimates were calculated and pooled under a random effects model expressing data as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Six randomised controlled trials with a total of 387 286 participants that met inclusion criteria were analysed. Screening was associated with an increased probability of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer (relative risk 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.77; P<0.001) and stage I prostate cancer (1.95, 1.22 to 3.13; P=0.005). There was no significant effect of screening on death from prostate cancer (0.88, 0.71 to 1.09; P=0.25) or overall mortality (0.99, 0.97 to 1.01; P=0.44). All trials had one or more substantial methodological limitations. None provided data on the effects of screening on participants' quality of life. Little information was provided about potential harms associated with screening. CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support the routine use of screening for prostate cancer with prostate specific antigen with or without digital rectal examination.
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
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Xu, J., & Ward, E. (2010) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20073 · Cited by 12,596
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S., & Ben Van Den, A. (2020) · International Coaching Psychology Review · doi:10.53841/bpsicpr.2020.15.2.123 · Cited by 5,670
What is ‘quality of evidence’ and why is it important to clinicians?
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.be · Cited by 3,250
Egger, M., Jüni, P., Bartlett, C., Holenstein, F., & Sterne, J. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7010 · Cited by 1,181
Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses
Sun, X., Briel, M., Walter, S. D., & Guyatt, G. H. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c117 · Cited by 808
Cited by
Radical Prostatectomy versus Observation for Localized Prostate Cancer
Wilt, T. J., Brawer, M. K., Jones, K. M., Barry, M. J., Aronson, W. J., Fox, S., Gingrich, J. R., Wei, J. T., Gilhooly, P., Grob, B. M., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1113162 · Cited by 1,770
Andriole, G. L., Crawford, E. D., Grubb, R. L., Buys, S. S., Chia, D., Church, T. R., Fouad, M. N., Isaacs, C., Kvale, P. A., Reding, D. J., et al. (2012) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djr500 · Cited by 1,121
Ilic, D., Djulbegovic, M., Jung, J. H., Hwang, E. C., Zhou, Q., Cleves, A., Agoritsas, T., & Dahm, P. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k3519 · Cited by 641
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Djulbegovic, M., Beyth, R. J., Neuberger, M. M., Stoffs, T. L., Vieweg, J., Djulbegovic, B., & Dahm, P.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2010-09-14
- Volume
- 341
- Issue
- sep14 1
- Pages
- c4543-c4543
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2072003197
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 7.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.c4543
- The paper
- Djulbegovic, M., Beyth, R. J., Neuberger, M. M., Stoffs, T. L., Vieweg, J., Djulbegovic, B., & Dahm, P. (2010). Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4543
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.