| Title |
Prospective investigation of change in the prostate-specific antigens after various urologic procedures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s84570 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Seung Chol Park, Yu Seob Shin, Li Tao Zhang, Dal Sik Kim, Sung Zoo Kim, Nam Cheol Park, Tai Young Ahn, Je Jong Kim, Sung Won Lee, Insuk So, Jong Kwan Park |
| Abstract |
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is the most important marker in the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with prostate cancer. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of various urologic procedures in prostatic area on serum free and total PSA levels. A series of 62 patients (8 after digital rectal examination [DRE], 12 after transrectal ultrasonography [TRUS], 11 after rigid cystoscopy, 13 after prostatic massage, 8 after TRUS-guided prostate biopsy, and 10 after transurethral resection of prostate [TURP]) were enrolled in the study. Blood samples were taken from each patient before procedure and at 10, 30, 60, and 120 minutes after procedures. Prostate massage, rigid cystoscopy, TURP, and TRUS-guided prostate biopsy caused statistically significant rise in total and free PSA levels in the serum. There was no significant increase in total and free PSA levels in the serum after DRE and TRUS. The mean differences were greater for free PSA level in the serum for TURP, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy, prostate massage, and rigid cystoscopy. Total and free PSA levels in the serum are altered by prostate massage, rigid cystoscopy, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy, and TURP. The PSA rises were related to the stimulation strength of the procedures. The total and free PSA levels were increased significantly from 10 minutes after procedures, except DRE and TRUS, and were increased to maximal level at 60 minutes after procedures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 19% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 January 2021.
All research outputs
#5,165,207
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#542
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,738
of 277,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#9
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 277,602 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.