↓ Skip to main content

Implications of the New AUA Guidelines on Prostate Cancer Detection in the U.S.

Overview of attention for article published in Current Urology Reports, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Implications of the New AUA Guidelines on Prostate Cancer Detection in the U.S.
Published in
Current Urology Reports, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11934-014-0420-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew R. Cooperberg

Abstract

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a blanket "D" recommendation against all prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based early detection efforts for prostate cancer, reflecting critical misinterpretations of the major evidence regarding benefits and harms of such testing. Against the backdrop of the ensuing controversy, in 2013 the American Urological Association (AUA) published a new, methodologically rigorous guideline. This guideline recommended that men aged 55-69 be offered biennial screening in the setting of shared decision-making, that men under 40 or over 69 years of age should not be screened routinely, and that evidence was insufficient to recommend screening for men aged 40-54 years. While it has received criticism with regard to the age-based recommendations, the AUA guideline reflects a far better and more balanced presentation of the available evidence than the USPSTF statement. However, because the USPSTF is far more influential than the AUA among primary care providers, the ultimate impact of the new AUA guideline on practice patterns may be limited. Optimizing early detection practices should involve consensus-building incorporating both primary care and specialist input, with the goals of minimizing overtreatment of low-risk disease while continuing to reduce prostate cancer mortality rates through early detection and aggressive management of high-risk disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Unspecified 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 46%
Unspecified 2 8%
Computer Science 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2015.
All research outputs
#5,459,450
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Current Urology Reports
#156
of 586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,164
of 226,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Urology Reports
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 226,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.