Impact of Decision Aids on Screening Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis
نویسندگان
1 Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
4 Proteomics Research Center and Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5 Midwifery and Reproductive Health Research Center, Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
doi
10.22034/ircmj.2024.203979چکیده
Background and Objectives: Prostate cancer is the most common solid cancer and there are different findings about the effect of decision aids (DAs) on the amount of screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Therefor this study investigated the impact of decision aids on prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer. Methods: We searched the articles published in English until August 18, 2024. In all studies, the independent variable was DAs and the response was the PSA test and the relationship index evaluate was the risk ratio (RR). The random-effects meta-analysis and subgroup analysis for response and follow-up times were performed. Results: In this review, 11 studies (N = 8983) were selected. Egger (P = 0.05) and Begg (P = 0.09) tests showed the absence of publication bias. The random-effects model showed decrease of 9% PSA test in the DAs group compared with control group (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.71-1.16) but there was no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer screening between two groups. Subgroup analysis of the response variable, 1- Doing by reviewing the medical report (P = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.6-1.24), 2- Intention to do (P = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.61-1.28) and 3- Doing the self-report (P = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.67-1.91), showed that there was no statistically significant relationship between the DAs and the PSA test. Subgroup analysis of the follow-up period of fewer than 4 months (P = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.71-1.52) and more than 4 months (P = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.62-1.35) showed no statistically significant relationship between the DAs and the PSA test. Conclusion: In general, our findings revealed that the informed DAs has no significant impact on PSA test behavior. Considering the importance of the PSA test, it is recommended to strengthen the relationship between the patient -physician about the test and its benefits.
