ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2017
Comparative study of conventional US, contrast enhanced US and enhanced MR for the follow-up of prostatic radiofrequency ablation.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography (CEUS) in Imaging of the Reproductive System in Dogs: A Literature Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Molecular imaging of orthotopic prostate cancer with nanobubble ultrasound contrast agents targeted to PSMA.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
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
The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different imaging methods during follow-up of prostatic radiofrequency ablation. Prostatic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was performed in 20 healthy beagle dogs. Various imaging examinations were used to monitor the results of RFA, including conventional ultrasound (US), contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and enhanced magnetic resonance (MR). Imaging exams were performed at five phases: Immediately following RFA, one week later, one month later, three months later and six months later. The morphology for each imaging test and histological results were recorded and compared in each phase. Based on the actual results from autopsy, the accuracy of those imaging exams was evaluated. The canine prostate gland demonstrated typical coagulative necrosis immediately following RFA. The lesion would develop into stable cyst if no other complications occurred within the six-month follow-up. Regarding the RFA lesion volume measurement and the reflection of pathological changes, conventional US was not able to accurately measure the volume of RFA lesion and missed many more details concerning the RFA-treated area than CEUS and MR during the three months. The results from CEUS exhibited comparable accuracy to those from enhanced MR at each phase. However, there were no significant differences in the results from US, CEUS and MR at six months, which may contribute to the complete formation of lesion cyst. In the early phase, conventional US was not sufficient for evaluating the efficacy of RFA. Enhanced US and MR provided clear images and accurate information. However, CEUS has the advantage of being more economical, using more convenient equipment and faster scanning, thus identifying it as the more feasible choice. Furthermore, no notable advantages were observed among any image examinations in the long-term follow-up.
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.