ReviewCurrent opinion in urology2016
Optimizing safety and accuracy of prostate biopsy.
Review in Current opinion in urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Graph neural network-based risk stratification of prostate cancer using gene expression and SHAP interpretability.PloS one · 2026Article
- Prostate biopsy in patients without rectal access: a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis.Central European journal of urology · 2025Review
- Prostate Cancer Microvascular Routes: Exploration and Measurement Strategies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Microbiome and Prostate Cancer: A Novel Target for Prevention and Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Enhanced antibiotic prophylaxis and infection-related complications following prostate biopsy.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- A Deep Learning Approach to Diagnostic Classification of Prostate Cancer Using Pathology-Radiology Fusion.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2021Article
- Decoding the evolutionary response to prostate cancer therapy by plasma genome sequencing.Genome biology · 2020Article
- CT-guided transgluteal biopsy for systematic sampling of the prostate in patients without rectal access: a 13-year single-center experience.European radiology · 2017Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe objective of this article is to examine the safety of prostate biopsy and discuss the emerging role of MRI-ultrasound fusion technology in improving diagnostic accuracy. RECENT
findingsMen undergoing prostate biopsy frequently experience minor complications, including hematospermia, hematuria, and infection. Quinolone-resistant bacteria are a growing concern; thus, transperineal access or modification of antibiotic prophylaxis based on local antibiograms is now used to avoid infectious complications.Multiparametric MRI allows visualization of many prostate cancers, and by fusing MRI with real-time ultrasound, a biopsy needle can be directed by a urologist into suspicious regions of interest. Using this new method, detection of clinically significant prostate cancer has increased and the incidence of falsely negative biopsies has decreased. SUMMARY: Prostate biopsy is generally a safe procedure, and with attention to local patterns of antibiotic resistance, infectious complications can be minimized. MRI-ultrasound fusion has significantly improved the accuracy of prostate biopsy, allowing tracking and targeting not previously possible.
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.