Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Perspective |

PSA Screening—I Finally Won!

Dan Merenstein, MD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Family Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(1):16-17. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5441.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


I must have won. That is what everyone tells me. At the beginning there were a few telephone calls, followed by e-mails, and now every talk I give someone brings up how happy I must feel for winning. What I purportedly won was the new recommendations against routine checking for prostate-specific antigen (PSA). The new recommendations acknowledge the limitations of PSA after years of heated debate. I had written an essay about our malpractice system and evidence-based medicine (EBM) after being sued, but the take-home point for many was that I did not order a PSA test after discussing the options with a patient. The new recommendations are consistent with how I practiced. I “won.”1

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment
PSA testing could have saved your patient's life
Posted on January 5, 2015
David L Keller, MD
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
I have written extensively on PubMed Commons on why the USPSTF was wrong about PSA testing. Powerful observational data links PSA testing to a significant and robust drop in prostate cancer mortality in every society where it gains widespread use, including a drop of 40% in the US. The randomized trials were butchered by non-adherence to protocol: 52% of the PLCO controls received off-protocol PSA testing. From the Goteburg sub-study, we learned that the better the adherence to protocol (both active and control arms) the more strongly the data supports the life-saving potential of PSA screening. Each year of additional follow-up strengthens the benefits of PSA. In 10 years, the USPSTF will be forced to change their D to an A, and I hope you will write an editorial giving the USPSTF their proper credit in your patient's avoidable death from prostate cancer.
Standard of care is usually a national issue
Posted on November 10, 2015
Brett T Snodgrass, MD
DrSocial Ltd.
Conflict of Interest: None Declared

The author of this article reports an unfortunate event of injustice that highlights the failings of our malpractice system.

The attorney, in this case, should have cited the 1993 case of Mishler v. Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners. The issue of "standard of care" by locality was discussed and rejected. They established that physicians such as family medicine doctors are certified by a national organization, the ABMS. Therefore, the "standard of care" should be considered a national issue, and not a local one.

Had the attorney referenced the Mishler case, the article's author may have won the first time. The court ruling can be found at http://drsocial.org/forums/topic/1131/mishler-v-arizona-medical-board/

Submit a Comment


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

1 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
Evidence-Based Practitioners and Evidence-Based Care

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
The Structure of the Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: The Foundations