Talk:PCA3

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about PCA3.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of molecular biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why does WPMED give it low-importance

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Given the incidence of prostate cancer, that of benign prostate hyperplasia, the fact that this test is cancer-specific instead of prostate specific, and that it's been known since 1999, is there a good reason for this article to have a low-importance WPMED rating? For anyone with a slightly elevated PSA level, as an alternative to undergoing two biopsies this seems like a huge improvement from the patient's perspective. It is tempting, if unkind, to speculate that WPMED does not see it that way because they're not the ones impacted by the slight but nonzero risks of biopsies. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Why does WPMED give it low-importance