revisões 660 Recebido em 27/01/2009 Aceite para publicação em 10/01/2010 Rev Port Clin Geral 2009;25:660-6 revisões 666 RESUMO HOW TO MAKE AN EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL REVIEW ARTICLEEvidence-Based Clinical Review articles are very helpful for busy clinicians. This article suggests a way to write this kind of clinical review, presenting a search strategy to select the best information available.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionProstate cancer is the most prevalent oncological disease among men in industrialised countries. Despite the high survival rates, treatments are often associated with adverse effects, including metabolic and cardiovascular complications, sexual dysfunction and, to a lesser extent, cognitive decline. This study was primarily designed to evaluate the trajectories of cognitive performance in patients with prostate cancer, and to quantify the impact of the disease and its treatments on the occurrence of cognitive decline.MethodsParticipants will be recruited from two main hospitals providing care to approximately half of the patients with prostate cancer in Northern Portugal (Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto and São João Hospital Centre), and will comprise a cohort of recently diagnosed patients with prostate cancer proposed for different treatment plans, including: (1) radical prostatectomy; (2) brachytherapy and/or radiotherapy; (3) radiotherapy in combination with androgen deprivation therapy and (4) androgen deprivation therapy (with or without chemotherapy). Recruitment began in February 2018 and is expected to continue until the first semester of 2021. Follow-up evaluations will be conducted at 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 years. Sociodemographic, behavioural and clinical characteristics, anxiety and depression, health literacy, health status, quality of life, and sleep quality will be assessed. Blood pressure and anthropometrics will be measured, and a fasting blood sample will be collected. Participants’ cognitive performance will be evaluated before treatments and throughout follow-up (Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Cube Test as well as Brain on Track for remote monitoring). All participants suspected of cognitive impairment will undergo neuropsychological tests and clinical observation by a neurologist.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the hospitals involved. All participants will provide written informed consent, and study procedures will be developed to ensure data protection and confidentiality. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation in scientific meetings.

Introduction: Opportunistic screening for prostate cancer has been widely used, though organized programs are not recommended. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of prostate cancer screening and the perception of potential benefits and harms of screening, among the Portuguese general population. Methods: A representative sample of Portuguese-speaking inhabitants in mainland Portugal was selected, using a stratified probabilistic sampling procedure; men above 40 were considered for analysis (n = 414). Data on sociodemographic characteristics, lifetime use and usual frequency of prostate cancer screening (prostate-specific antigen test or digital rectal examination) and perception of potential benefits and adverse effects of cancer screening were assessed using face-to-face interviews, by structured questionnaire. Results: The proportion of participants who reported having been submitted to prostate cancer screening at least once in their lifetime was 44.2% (95% confidence interval: 37.5–51.0; 13.8% only digital rectal examination, 12.2% only prostate-specific antigen test, and 18.2% digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen test). As potential benefits of cancer screening, the options “knowledge of not having the disease”, “earlier detection” and “more effective treatment” were selected by 55.8%, 12.9% and 31.3% of the participants, respectively. Regarding potential adverse effects, the most and least frequently identified were ‘anxiety while waiting for the results’ (55.1%) and ‘false negatives’ (38.0%), respectively. Conclusions: Almost half of the men between 40 and 79 years old declared that they have been screened for prostate cancer. Nearly one-third of the participants considered that reassurance of a negative result was the main potential benefit of screening, whereas most failed to identify the most frequent adverse effects.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract