The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721 718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.
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
Yaşlı Kadınlarda Üreme Sağlığı
Kokanalı, D., & Engin Üstün, Y. (n.d.) · DergiPark (Istanbul University) · Cited by 170,090
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,451
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Home visits: a strategy to improve newborn survival - Authors' reply
(2008) · Americanae (AECID Library) · doi:10.1016/s0140 · Cited by 22,524
International Agency for Research on Cancer
National Cancer Institute (2020) · Definitions · doi:10.32388/pfg7jq · Cited by 9,435
Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016
Miller, K. D., Siegel, R. L., Lin, C. C., Mariotto, A. B., Kramer, J. L., Rowland, J. H., Stein, K. D., Alteri, R., & Jemal, A. (2016) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21349 · Cited by 6,066
Ahmed, H. U., El-Shater Bosaily, A., Brown, L. C., Gabe, R., Kaplan, R., Parmar, M. K., Collaco-Moraes, Y., Ward, K., Hindley, R. G., Freeman, A., et al. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32401-1 · Cited by 3,284
Cited by
Liquid biopsy enters the clinic — implementation issues and future challenges
Ignatiadis, M., Sledge, G. W., & Jeffrey, S. S. (2021) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41571-020-00457-x · Cited by 1,191
The importance of long-term follow up of participants in clinical trials
Cuzick, J. (2023) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41416-022-02038-4 · Cited by 101
Novel AI applications in systematic review: gPT-4 assisted data extraction, analysis, review of bias
Kim, J. K., Chua, M. E., Li, T. G., Rickard, M., & Lorenzo, A. J. (2025) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113066 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Ilic, D., Djulbegovic, M., Jung, J. H., Hwang, E. C., Zhou, Q., Cleves, A., Agoritsas, T., & Dahm, P.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2018-09-05
- Volume
- 362
- Pages
- k3519
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- OpenAlex
- W2892147080
- Cited by
- 641
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 10.85
- 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: Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.k3519
- The paper
- Ilic, D., Djulbegovic, M., Jung, J. H., Hwang, E. C., Zhou, Q., Cleves, A., Agoritsas, T., & Dahm, P. (2018). Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3519
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.