Correction to: Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, published online 25 July 2023

There are typos in the “Results”, please find the corrected text below:


Overall, 52% of podcasts were low-moderate quality. 35% had poor understandability, and 65% had poor actionability. Of the podcasts analyzed, 45% explicitly discussed shared decision making between physicians and patients, 12% contained moderate to high misinformation, and 7% had commercial bias (Table 1). 62% of the podcasts were targeted toward patients or the general public. Of these: 63% were rated as low-moderate quality, 9% had poor understandability, 50% had poor actionability, 45% discussed shared decision making, 16% contained moderate to high misinformation, and 10% had commercial bias (Table 1). When compared to podcasts targeted to medical professionals, a significantly greater number were rated as low-moderate quality (63% vs. 34%; p ≤ 0.01), while a smaller percent had poor understandability (9% vs. 76%; p ≤ 0.01) and poor actionability (50% vs. 89%; p ≤ 0.01). 21% of podcasts contained any amount of misinformation (low, moderate, or high).

Table 1 Analysis of prostate cancer content on podcasts.

43 podcasts discussed prostate cancer treatments, and of these, 63% discussed alternative treatments (surgery vs. radiation vs. active surveillance), and 63% discussed impacts on quality of life.

Regarding the creators and narrators: 28% were doctors, 20% were health and wellness channels, 12% were foundation/advocacy groups, 11% were medical education, 4% were patients, and 25% were “other.”

There were 5 podcasts with at least 1000 reviews on Apple podcasts. Of these, 4 were rated as low-moderate quality, 1 had poor understandability, 3 had poor actionability, and 1 contained moderate to high misinformation.

There are also typos in Table 1. Please find the correct table below: