Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26251750›Full record

ArticleCentral European journal of urology2015

Transrectal-ultrasound prostatic biopsy preparation: rectal enema vs. mechanical bowel preparation.

Cosimo De Nunzio, Riccardo Lombardo, Fabrizio Presicce, Mariangela Bellangino, Enrico Finazzi Agro, Matteo Bonetto Gambrosier, Alberto Trucchi, Stefano Petta, Andrea Tubaro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cosimo De NunzioOspedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
Riccardo LombardoOspedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
Fabrizio PresicceOspedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
Mariangela BellanginoOspedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
Enrico Finazzi AgroPoliclinico Torvegata, Roma, Italia.
Matteo Bonetto GambrosierOspedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
Alberto TrucchiOspedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
Stefano PettaOspedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
Andrea TubaroOspedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza, Roma, Italia.
Azienda Ospedaliera Sant'Andrea · ITPoliclinico Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTransrectal prostate biopsy (TRUSbx) is the standard for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Different bowel preparations are used for patients undergoing TRUSbx. The aim of our study was to compare two different bowel preparations for TRUSbx. MATERIAL AND

methodsFrom May 2012 and onwards, a selected group of men undergoing TRUS 12-core prostate biopsy were enrolled into a prospective database. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive a rectal enema (Group A) the night before the procedure or polyethylene glycol 34.8 grams/4 liters of water the day before the procedure (Group B). A VAS scale to evaluate the patients' discomfort according to the two preparations was collected. The same antibiotic prophylaxis was performed in both groups. All complications were prospectively recorded and graded according to the Clavien Classification System (CCS).

resultsA total of 198 patients were consecutively enrolled. Mean age was 67.5 ±7.9 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.1 ±4.2 Kg/m(2), mean PSA value was 9.3 ±12.6 ng/ml and the mean prostatic volume was 60.6 ±29 ml. 97 patients were enrolled in Group A and 101 in Group B. Overall post-biopsy morbidity rate was 60%. No significant differences for low-grade and high-grade complications was observed between the two groups. Patients receiving the rectal enema presented with a significantly lower VAS score (3.1 ±1.1 vs. 5.9 ±1.7; p = 0.02).

conclusionsOur study confirmed that a rectal enema should be considered as the standard bowel preparation in patients undergoing a TRUS biopsy; it is as effective as PEG and associated with less discomfort.

Indexed as

complicationspolyethylene glycolprostate biopsyprostate cancerrectal enema

Identifiers

PMID26251750
PMCPMC4526619
OpenAlexW2224005712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.