EBM

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Evidence-Based Medicine 2007;12:40; doi:10.1136/ebm.12.2.40
Copyright © 2007 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barry, M. J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barry, M. J

Therapeutics

Review: evidence from 2 low quality screening studies does not show a reduction in death from prostate cancer

Ilic D, O’Connor D, Green S, et al. Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(3):CD004720.

Q Does screening for prostate cancer reduce mortality?

Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ******{star} IM/Ambulatory care ****{star}{star}{star} Oncology ******{star}

Key Words: mass screening • physical examination • prostate-specific antigen • prostatic neoplasms

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

METHODS
Formula Data sources: PROSTATE register (up to November 2004), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, CANCERLIT, NHS EED (all from 1966 to January 2006); hand searches of specialist journals: BJU International (2000–2005), European Urology (2002–2005), The Prostate (1998–2005), Journal of Urology (1996–2005), Urology (2002–2005), and Cancer (1998–2005); grey literature; and personal communication.

Formula Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) in any language that compared screening with no screening for prostate cancer in men of any age. Screening procedures included digital rectal examination, prostate specific antigen test, or transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Studies evaluating the economic impact of screening for prostate cancer were also included. 1 RCT (n = 46 486) and 1 quasi-RCT (n = 9026) met the selection criteria. Quality assessment of individual studies was based on randomisation, blinding, completeness of the follow up, and intention to screen analysis. Both included studies . . . [Full text of this article]

Michael J Barry, MD

Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts, USA







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2007 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.