Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26515285›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2015

[MR imaging of the prostate].

P Asbach, M Haas, B Hamm

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

3 authors.

P AsbachKlinik für Radiologie, Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Deutschland. patrick.asbach@charite.de.
M HaasKlinik für Radiologie, Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Deutschland.
B HammKlinik für Radiologie, Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200, Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

clinical issueProstate cancer is the most common form of cancer in men in Germany; however, there is a distinct difference between incidence and mortality. STANDARD TREATMENT: The detection of prostate cancer is based on clinical and laboratory testing using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and transrectal ultrasound with randomized biopsy. DIAGNOSTIC WORK-UP: Multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate can provide valuable diagnostic information for detection of prostate cancer, especially after negative results of a biopsy prior to repeat biopsy. PERFORMANCE: In addition the use of MR ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy has gained in diagnostic importance and has increased the prostate cancer detection rate. ACHIEVEMENTS AND PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: The prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) classification has standardized the reporting of prostate MRI which has positively influenced the acceptance by urologists.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAlgorithmsEuropeHumansImage EnhancementImage-Guided BiopsyImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstateProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityFusion guided biopsyMagnetic resonance imagingMultiparametric imagingProstateProstate imaging reporting and data system

Identifiers

PMID26515285

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.