Words of wisdom. Re: Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy.

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.

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.

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. TRUS-guided transperineal prostate 12+X core biopsy with template for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.Oncology letters · 2017
   Article
2. Role of active surveillance and focal therapy in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancers.World journal of urology · 2015
   Article
3. MRI-guided biopsies and minimally invasive therapy for prostate cancer.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy.2014

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as