Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Review ArticleSystematic Review

Digital Rectal Examination for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Leen Naji, Harkanwal Randhawa, Zahra Sohani, Brittany Dennis, Deanna Lautenbach, Owen Kavanagh, Monica Bawor, Laura Banfield and Jason Profetto
The Annals of Family Medicine March 2018, 16 (2) 149-154; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2205
Leen Naji
1Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harkanwal Randhawa
2Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
BHSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Zahra Sohani
3Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
MSc, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brittany Dennis
4St George’s University of London, London, United Kingdom
BA, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deanna Lautenbach
5Profetto-Savatteri Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
PA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Owen Kavanagh
1Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
BHSc, MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Monica Bawor
4St George’s University of London, London, United Kingdom
BSc, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura Banfield
6Health Sciences Library, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
MLIS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jason Profetto
1Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
MD, CCFP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    PRISMA flowchart for the selection of articles.

    CINAHL = Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; DARE = Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects; PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    General Characteristics of the Included Studies

    Study, YearCountryDesignPatients Screened, No.Patients Undergoing Biopsy, No.Age Range, yIndication(s) for Biopsy
    Al-Azab et al,16 2007CanadaRetrospective chart review1,7961,79640–93Elevated age-specific PSA level or abnormal DRE findings
    Brett,17 1998AustraliaProspective cohort study2111150–79Abnormal DRE findings or PSA level ≥4.1 ng/mL
    Crawford et al,18 1999United StatesRetrospective chart review142,1114,16040–79Abnormal DRE findings or PSA level ≥4 ng/mL
    Elliott et al,19 2008United StatesRetrospective review of prospectively collected data1,5641,564N/AAbnormal DRE findings and/or PSA level ≥4 ng/mL
    Faria et al,20 2012BrazilProspective cohort study17,5711,64745–98Abnormal DRE findings and/or PSA level ≥4 ng/mL; and starting Nov 2004, PSA 2.5–3.9 ng/mL and % free PSA level ≤15
    Kirby et al,21 1994United KingdomProspective cohort study5682955–70Abnormal DRE findings or PSA level >4 ng/mL
    Pederson et al,22 1990SwedenProspective cohort study1,1633450–69Abnormal DRE findings
    • DRE=digital rectal examination; N/A=not available; PSA=prostate-specific antigen.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Study Quality Assessment According to QUADAS-2 Tool

    Risk of BiasApplicability Concerns
    Study, YearPatient SelectionIndex TestReference StandardFlow and TimingPatient SelectionIndex TestReference Standard
    Al-Azab et al,16 2007HighHighLowHighUnclearUnclearLow
    Brett,17 1998UnclearLowLowHighLowLowLow
    Crawford et al,18 1999UnclearHighLowHighLowUnclearLow
    Elliott et al,19 2008UnclearLowLowHighUnclearUnclearLow
    Faria et al,20 2012UnclearHighLowHighLowUnclearLow
    Kirby et al,21 1994LowLowLowHighLowLowLow
    Pederson et al,22 1990LowLowLowHighLowLowLow
    • QUADAS-2 = Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Study Quality of Evidence According to GRADE Guidelines

    OutcomesNo. of Studies (No. of Patients)Study DesignDomain
    Risk of BiasIndirectnessInconsistencyImprecisionPublication BiasTest of Accuracy
    Sensitivity and specificitya
     True positive and false negative6 (3,304)Cross-sectional (cohort type accuracy study)SeriousbNot seriousVery seriouscVery seriousdNoneVery low
     True negative and false positive4 (5,877)Cross-sectional (cohort type accuracy study)SeriousbNot seriousVery seriouseVery seriousdNoneVery low
    PPV and NPVf
     True positive and false positive6 (4,581)Cross-sectional (cohort type accuracy study)SeriousbNot seriousVery seriousgVery seriousdNoneVery low
     True negative and false negative4 (4,634)Cross-sectional (cohort type accuracy study)SeriousbNot seriousVery serioushVery seriousdNoneVery low
    • GRADE = Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; NPV = negative predictive value; PPV = positive predictive value.

    • ↵a Sensitivity = 0.51 (95% CI, 0.36–0.67); specificity = 0.59 (95% CI, 0.41–0.76).

    • ↵b According to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool, all studies included in this meta-analysis were deemed to have significant risk of bias concerns.

    • ↵c Unexplained heterogeneity between studies (I2=98.4%).

    • ↵d The confidence interval is a range that, if the true value were to lie within it, would result in different clinical decisions depending on where it fell.

    • ↵e Unexplained heterogeneity between studies (I2=99.4%).

    • ↵f PPV = 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31–0.52); NPV = 0.64 (95% CI, 0.58–0.70).

    • ↵g Unexplained heterogeneity between studies (I2= 97.2%).

    • ↵h Unexplained heterogeneity between studies (I2= 95.0%).

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Summary Findings and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of DRE for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care Settings

    Study, YearSensitivitySpecificityPPVNPV
    Al-Azab et al,16 20070.500.610.490.62
    Brett,17 19980.67N/AN/AN/A
    Crawford et al,18 19990.650.370.290.72
    Elliott et al,19 20080.650.650.520.64
    Faria et al,20 20120.240.720.360.59
    Kirby et al,21 19940.73N/AN/AN/A
    Pederson et al,22 1990N/AN/A0.26N/A
    Pooled analysisa
     Estimate (95% CI)0.51 (0.36–0.67)0.59 (0.41–0.76)0.41 (0.31–0.52)0.64 (0.58–0.70)
    Heterogeneity: I2, %98.499.497.295.0
    • DRE = digital rectal examination; NPV = negative predictive value; N/A = not available; PPV = positive predictive value.

    • ↵a Pooled analysis of data from 6 studies of 3,304 patients total for sensitivity; 4 studies of 5,877 patients total for specificity; 6 studies of 4,581 patients total for positive predictive value; and 4 studies of 4,634 patients total for negative predictive value.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Appendixes

    Supplemental Appendixes

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental data: Appendixes - PDF file
  • The Article in Brief

    Digital Rectal Examination for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    Jason Profetto , and colleagues

    Background Although digital rectal examination is commonly used to screen for prostate cancer, there is limited data to support its use in primary care. This analysis of existing research aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the digital rectal exam in screening for prostate cancer in primary care settings.

    What This Study Found There is limited data to support the effectiveness of digital rectal examination in primary care. The study found that the quality of available evidence was very low and that existing studies were at risk of bias. Pooled sensitivity of the digital rectal exam among primary care physicians was 0.51 and pooled specificity was 0.59.

    Implications

    • Given the considerable lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, the authors recommend against routinely performing digital rectal exams to screen for prostate cancer in the primary care setting.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 16 (2)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 16 (2)
Vol. 16, Issue 2
March/April 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Digital Rectal Examination for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Digital Rectal Examination for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Leen Naji, Harkanwal Randhawa, Zahra Sohani, Brittany Dennis, Deanna Lautenbach, Owen Kavanagh, Monica Bawor, Laura Banfield, Jason Profetto
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2018, 16 (2) 149-154; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2205

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Digital Rectal Examination for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Leen Naji, Harkanwal Randhawa, Zahra Sohani, Brittany Dennis, Deanna Lautenbach, Owen Kavanagh, Monica Bawor, Laura Banfield, Jason Profetto
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2018, 16 (2) 149-154; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2205
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Towards robust medical machine olfaction: debiasing GC-MS data enhances prostate cancer diagnosis from urine volatiles
  • Potential impact of a population-based screening program on the increased burden of prostate cancer in Thailand: A simulation study
  • Diagnostic Efficacy of Various Imaging Modalities Across Different Stages of Prostate Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Studies
  • Optimising the use of the prostate- specific antigen blood test in asymptomatic men for early prostate cancer detection in primary care: report from a UK clinical consensus
  • The accuracy of machine learning models using ultrasound images in prostate cancer diagnosis: A systematic review
  • Is one narrative enough? Analytical tools should match the problems they address
  • The diagnostic value of RASSF1A promoter methylation in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Repercussions de la modification des lignes directrices pour lexamen rectal digital sur la formation des etudiants
  • Educational implications of changing the guidelines for the digital rectal examination
  • PCASTt/SPCG-17--a randomised trial of active surveillance in prostate cancer: rationale and design
  • Identification of key regulators in Prostate cancer from gene expression datasets of patients
  • Large-scale Circulating microRNA Profiling for the Liquid Biopsy of Prostate Cancer
  • In This Issue: Refining Care and its Frameworks
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Chest Pain in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Risk Stratification Tools to Rule Out Acute Coronary Syndrome
  • Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Regimen for Mild/Moderately Severe COVID-19: A Rapid Review With Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
  • Clinically Important Benefits and Harms of Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Amyloid for the Treatment of Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Show more Systematic Review

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Prevention
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other topics:
    • Clinical practice guidelines

Keywords

  • digital rectal examination
  • prostatic neoplasms
  • malignancy
  • diagnosis
  • primary health care

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine