[10] Digital rectal examination: is it essential for the screening of prostate cancer

Objective: To investigate the place of digital rectal examination (DRE) in the practice of general practitioners (GP) in our region (primary care physicians), as historically there have been two ways to screen for prostate cancer: DRE and prostate-specific antigen testing. Methods: This is a descrip...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Samir Bouras
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Taylor & Francis Group 2018
Materias:	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/e57d178ea2bc4d208b86a861d4f5b050
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:e57d178ea2bc4d208b86a861d4f5b050
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:e57d178ea2bc4d208b86a861d4f5b0502021-12-02T10:50:52Z[10] Digital rectal examination: is it essential for the screening of prostate cancer2090-598X10.1016/j.aju.2018.10.057https://doaj.org/article/e57d178ea2bc4d208b86a861d4f5b0502018-11-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090598X18301517https://doaj.org/toc/2090-598XObjective: To investigate the place of digital rectal examination (DRE) in the practice of general practitioners (GP) in our region (primary care physicians), as historically there have been two ways to screen for prostate cancer: DRE and prostate-specific antigen testing. Methods: This is a descriptive cross-sectional evaluation of practices, in a declarative and anonymous mode. The survey was conducted based on a pre-established questionnaire with 145 GPs in the public and private sector, in the region. The questionnaire included three components: identity criteria of physicians, the diagnosis approach of low urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), and their theoretical knowledge of recommendations including screening. Results: In all, 137 (94%) GPs participated in this study, including 70 (51%) men and 67 (49%) women. The mean (range) age was 44.6 (25–72) years. DRE was considered to be recommended by 116 (86.6%) GPs; however, it was only performed in a systematic way by five (4%), including one woman. In all, 76 GPs (55%) said they had done it systematically at the beginning of their exercise. Male GPs did more DREs vs female GPs, at 39 (56%) vs 14 (21%), and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001, odds ratio 4.7). Only 28 GPs (28.4%) thought that the DRE should be performed by a urologist; and 38 female GPs (67.9%) reported that their gender was a barrier to this test. Nine women reported a refusal of DRE because of their sex. Conclusion: Although it is true that the recommendations are not very clear concerning screening, the fact remains that many GPs do not follow any of them. Knowing the value of DRE, many of them do not realise it and do not refer to a urologist. This ambiguous diagnosis approach requires better organising of consultations and emphasises the need to strengthen practitioners’ knowledge of screening in general.Samir BourasTaylor & Francis GrouparticleDiseases of the genitourinary system. UrologyRC870-923ENArab Journal of Urology, Vol 16, Iss , Pp S6- (2018)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923
spellingShingle	Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology RC870-923 Samir Bouras [10] Digital rectal examination: is it essential for the screening of prostate cancer
description	Objective: To investigate the place of digital rectal examination (DRE) in the practice of general practitioners (GP) in our region (primary care physicians), as historically there have been two ways to screen for prostate cancer: DRE and prostate-specific antigen testing. Methods: This is a descriptive cross-sectional evaluation of practices, in a declarative and anonymous mode. The survey was conducted based on a pre-established questionnaire with 145 GPs in the public and private sector, in the region. The questionnaire included three components: identity criteria of physicians, the diagnosis approach of low urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), and their theoretical knowledge of recommendations including screening. Results: In all, 137 (94%) GPs participated in this study, including 70 (51%) men and 67 (49%) women. The mean (range) age was 44.6 (25–72) years. DRE was considered to be recommended by 116 (86.6%) GPs; however, it was only performed in a systematic way by five (4%), including one woman. In all, 76 GPs (55%) said they had done it systematically at the beginning of their exercise. Male GPs did more DREs vs female GPs, at 39 (56%) vs 14 (21%), and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001, odds ratio 4.7). Only 28 GPs (28.4%) thought that the DRE should be performed by a urologist; and 38 female GPs (67.9%) reported that their gender was a barrier to this test. Nine women reported a refusal of DRE because of their sex. Conclusion: Although it is true that the recommendations are not very clear concerning screening, the fact remains that many GPs do not follow any of them. Knowing the value of DRE, many of them do not realise it and do not refer to a urologist. This ambiguous diagnosis approach requires better organising of consultations and emphasises the need to strengthen practitioners’ knowledge of screening in general.
format	article
author	Samir Bouras
author_facet	Samir Bouras
author_sort	Samir Bouras
title	[10] Digital rectal examination: is it essential for the screening of prostate cancer
title_short	[10] Digital rectal examination: is it essential for the screening of prostate cancer
title_full	[10] Digital rectal examination: is it essential for the screening of prostate cancer
title_fullStr	[10] Digital rectal examination: is it essential for the screening of prostate cancer
title_full_unstemmed	[10] Digital rectal examination: is it essential for the screening of prostate cancer
title_sort	[10] digital rectal examination: is it essential for the screening of prostate cancer
publisher	Taylor & Francis Group
publishDate	2018
url	https://doaj.org/article/e57d178ea2bc4d208b86a861d4f5b050
work_keys_str_mv	AT samirbouras 10digitalrectalexaminationisitessentialforthescreeningofprostatecancer
_version_	1718396561383227392

[10] Digital rectal examination: is it essential for the screening of prostate cancer

Ejemplares similares