Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22096657›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer2011

Systematic analysis of transrectal prostate biopsies using an ink method and specific histopathologic protocol: a prospective study.

David Parada, Nahum Calvo, Karla Peña, Vanesa Morente, Rosana Queralt, Pilar Hernandez, Francesc Riu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 81% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

David ParadaServei de Patologia i, Hospital Universitari Sant Joan de Reus, Tarragona 43206, Reus, Spain.
Nahum Calvo
Karla Peña
Vanesa Morente
Rosana Queralt
Pilar Hernandez
Francesc Riu
Hospital Universitari Sant Joan de Reus · ESInstitut d'Investigació Sanitària Pere Virgili · ESUniversidad Rovira i Virgili · ESCorporació Sanitària Parc Taulí · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Transrectal prostate biopsy is the standard protocol for the screening for prostate cancer. It helps to locate prostatic adenocarcinoma and plan treatment. However, the increasing number of prostate biopsies leads to considerably greater costs for the pathology laboratories. In this study, we compare the traditional method with an ink method in combination with a systematic histopathologic protocol. Methods. Two hundred consecutive transrectal prostate biopsy specimens were received from the radiology department. They were separated into two groups: one hundred were processed as six different specimens in the usual manner. The other one hundred were submitted in six containers, the apex, base, and middle section of which were stained different colours. The samples subject to the ink method were embedded in paraffin and placed in two cassettes which were sectioned using a specific protocol. Results. The comparative study of the nonink and ink methods for histopathologic diagnosis showed no statistical differences as far as diagnostic categories were concerned (P  value < .005). The number of PIN diagnoses increased when the ink method was used, but no statistical differences were found. The ink method led to a cost reduction of 48.86%. Conclusions. Our ink method combined with a specific histopathologic protocol provided the same diagnostic quality, tumor location information as the traditional method, and lower pathology expenses.

Identifiers

PMID22096657
PMCPMC3200289
OpenAlexW2107516731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.