Trial reportScientific reports2015
Comparison between Ultrasound Guided Transperineal and Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective, Randomized, and Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03936127 (Comparison of a Novel Transperineal Targeted Fusion Biopsy System to Conventional Transrectal Targeted Fusion Biopsy for Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancers and to Eliminate Post-procedure Related Infections), which is not on this map. Cited by 55 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Comparison of a Novel Transperineal Targeted Fusion Biopsy System to Conventional Transrectal Targeted Fusion Biopsy for Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancers and to Eliminate Post-procedure Related Infections: A Randomized Control Trial
Who cites it
55 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Transperineal biopsy devices in people with suspected prostate cancer - a systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy versus transrectal route in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy for detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Oncotarget · 2017Pooled it
- A randomized controlled comparison between periprostatic nerve block and pelvic plexus block at the base and apex of 14-core prostate biopsies.World journal of urology · 2019Trial
- Ultrasound-Guided Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Aspiration Biopsy in Diagnosing Prostate Cancer: An Observational Comparison Study.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026Observational
- Patient-centric outcomes determine the value proposition of prostate biopsy procedures.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Transperineal (TP) Versus Transrectal (TR) Prostate Biopsy: Efficacy, Safety, and Systemic Challenges-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Reduced Rate of Complications With Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: Real-world Data From a National Cohort Derived From the Danish Prostate Cancer Registry.European urology open science · 2026Article
- Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Across Settings With and Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeting.European urology open science · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the effect of virtual reality hypnosis on pain through attentional diversion during prostate biopsies under local anesthesia (HYPNOSURG-VR): a study protocol.International journal of surgery protocols · 2025Article
- Comparative Performance of the CamPROBE Local Anaesthetic Transperineal Biopsy Device Versus an In-Line Device for Detection of Significant Prostate Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Single-Center Comparative Evaluation of Freehand Transperineal and Transrectal Prostate Biopsy Techniques Performed Under Local Anesthesia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Combining multi-parametric MRI radiomics features with tumor abnormal protein to construct a machine learning-based predictive model for prostate cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates and complications between transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal and transrectal biopsies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Choosing the path: insights into transperinealTranslational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Review
- Navigating Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Contemporary Perspectives and Future Trajectories in the Canadian Context.Journal of endourology · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a nomogram model for predicting acute urinary retention after transrectal prostate biopsy.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This prospective study of comparing transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBx) with transrectal prostate biopsy (TRBx) was aimed to provide evidence for clinicians to select the appropriate biopsy approach under different conditions. TPBx (n = 173) and TRBx (n = 166) were performed randomly for 339 patients who were suspicious of prostate cancer (PCa). The cancer detection rate (CDR), complication rate, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, most painful procedure, number of repeated biopsy and additional anesthesia, and operating time (starting from lying down on the operating table to getting up) were recorded. The results showed that TPBx and TRBx were equivalent in CDR (35.3% vs. 31.9%) and minor complication rate (44.9% vs. 41.0%) (both P > 0.05). The major complication rate was lower in TPBx than in TRBx (0.6% vs. 4.3%, P < 0.05). TPBx was more time-consuming (17.51 ± 3.33 min vs. 14.73 ± 3.25 min) and painful (VAS score: 4.0 vs. 2.0); and it had higher rates of repeated biopsy (3.2% vs. 1.1%) and additional anesthesia (15.0% vs. 1.2%) (all P < 0.05). In summary, both TPBx and TRBx are effective to detect PCa. The major complication rate for TRBx is higher, whereas TPBx procedure is more complex and painful.
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.