ArticleCentral European journal of urology2015
External validation of extended prostate biopsy nomogram.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHistorical nomograms for the prediction of cancer on prostate biopsy, developed in the sextant biopsy era are no more accurate today. The aim of this study was an independent external validation of a 10-core biopsy nomogram by Chun et al. (2007). MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 322 patients who presented for their initial biopsy in a tertiary care center and had all the necessary data available were included in the retrospective analysis. To validate the nomogram, receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and calibration plots were constructed.
resultsArea under the ROC curve calculated for our data using the nomogram was 0.773, similar to that reported originally. However, the nomogram systematically overestimated prostate cancer risk, which, for our data, could be resolved by subtracting 24 points from the total number of points of the nomogram.
conclusionsThe nomogram yielded overall good predictive accuracy as measured by the area under the ROC curve, but it systematically overestimated PC probability in individual patients. However, we showed how the nomogram could easily be adapted to our patient sample, resolving the bias issue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.