Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters 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 ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (15)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hoogendam, A.
Right arrow Articles by de Vet, H. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hoogendam, A.
Right arrow Articles by de Vet, H. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 16, No. 6, 621-626
© Oxford University Press 1999

The diagnostic value of digital rectal examination in primary care screening for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis

Arjen Hoogendam, Frank Buntinxa and Henrica CW de Vetb

The Medion group for meta-analysis of diagnostic studies.
a Department of General Practice, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands, and Leuven, Belgium and
b Department of Epidemiology, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Prof. Dr F Buntinx, University of Maastricht, Department of General Practice, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Objective. This systematic review examines the diagnostic value of the digital rectal examination (DRE) for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Method. Only studies relating to unselected populations and using either biopsy or surgery as the reference standard were included. The methodological quality of the studies was used in an attempt to explain differences between studies.

Results. Fourteen studies were eligible for selection, of which five complied with the predetermined list of ‘good-quality’ requirements. Between study heterogeneity was high, even within the group of high-quality studies, and could not be explained by the registered indicators of methodological quality.

Conclusions. In this setting, the DRE appears to be a test with a high specificity and negative predictive value, but a low sensitivity and positive predictive value. Neither a positive nor a negative test result is sufficient to enable conclusions without further confirmation.

Keywords. Predictive value of tests, primary health care, prostate neoplasms, sensitivity and specificity.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CMAJHome page
A. W.S. Rutjes, J. B. Reitsma, M. Di Nisio, N. Smidt, J. C. van Rijn, and P. M.M. Bossuyt
Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies.
Can. Med. Assoc. J., February 14, 2006; 174(4): 469 - 476.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
R. Harris and K. N. Lohr
Screening for Prostate Cancer: An Update of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Ann Intern Med, December 3, 2002; 137(11): 917 - 929.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.