ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015
Prostate cancer: a comparison of the diagnostic performance of transrectal ultrasound versus contrast enhanced transrectal ultrasound in different clinical characteristics.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Non-invasive quantification of tumor blood flow in prostate cancer usingAmerican journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To determine whether contrast-enhanced transrectal ultrasound (CE-TRUS) is superior to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) on diagnosis of prostate cancer, 317 patients were processed TRUS examination with or without SonoVue, then biopsy was performed. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of two techniques were compared in multiple subgroups of PSA level, Digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate volume on biopsy results. In PSA 4-10 ng/ml and DRE negative groups, CE-TRUS had greater sensitivity and accuracy compared with TRUS by patient (P = .004 and .003; .013 and .005 respectively) and greater sensitivity, accuracy, PPV and NPV by core. When prostate volume was 45-65 ml, CE-TRUS had greater specificity and accuracy by patient and all diagnostic performances were statistically significant by core. CE-TRUS is superior to TRUS on diagnosis of prostate cancer in a designed patient population with lower PSA level, DRE negative findings and modest prostate volume.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26885087PMC4723932W2280862891What 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.