Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22310216›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2012

A biomedical engineering approach to mitigate the errors of prostate biopsy.

Hashim Uddin Ahmed, Mark Emberton, Gordon Kepner, Jeremy Kepner

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Magnetic Resonance-Guided Prostate Ablation.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2019
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Detecting Prostate Cancer.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

4 authors.

Hashim Uddin AhmedDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, 4th Floor, Medical School Building, University College London, 74 Huntley Street, London WC1E 6AU, UK. Ahmedhashim.ahmed@ucl.ac.uk
Mark Emberton
Gordon Kepner
Jeremy Kepner

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701302Medical Research Council G1002509
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current protocol for detecting and ruling out prostate cancer involves serum PSA testing followed by sampling of the prostate using a transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy. Many specialists have discussed how PSA screening has contributed to underdetection of clinically significant prostate cancer, overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant disease and poor risk stratification; however, little consideration has been given to the role of TRUS-guided biopsy in these errors. The performance of TRUS-guided biopsy is constrained by the biomechanical attributes of the sampling strategy, resulting in suboptimal detection efficiency of each core. By using a biomedical engineering approach, a uniform grid sampling strategy could be used to improve the detection efficiency of prostate biopsy. Moreover, the calibration of the sampling can be adjusted by altering the distance between needle deployments. Our model shows that for any given number of needle trajectories, a uniform grid approach will be superior to a divergent, nonuniform strategy for the detection of clinically important disease. This is an important message that should result in a move away from divergent sampling to a uniform grid approach for prostate biopsy.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomedical EngineeringBiopsyHumansMaleProstateProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsUltrasonographyUltrasound, High-Intensity Focused, TransrectalProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID22310216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.