Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29064054›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2017

HistoScanning

James S Wysock, Alex Xu, Clement Orczyk, Samir S Taneja

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

James S WysockDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. james.wysock@nyumc.org.
Alex XuNew York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Clement OrczykDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Samir S TanejaDivision of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe widely acknowledged limitations of the standard prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic paradigm have provided an impetus to explore novel imaging modalities to diagnose, localize, and risk stratify PCa. As the body of literature focused on HistoScanning™(HS) grows, there is need for a comprehensive review of the clinical efficacy of this technology. RECENT

findingsEighteen original, English language articles were found to adequately study the use of HistoScanning™ for prostate cancer diagnosis in the clinical setting. The articles were found by conducting a bibliographic search of PubMed in April 2017 in addition to utilizing references. The studies are divided into four groups based on study design. Study methods and quantitative data are summarized for each of the relevant articles. The results are synthesized to evaluate the utility of HistoScanning™ for the purpose of diagnosing PCa. Despite the promise of early pilot studies, there is a lack of consistent results across a number of further investigations of HistoScanning™. This becomes increasingly evident as study size increases. As various other modern diagnostic modalities continue to develop, the future of HistoScanning™, both alone and in conjunction with these technologies, remains unclear.

Indexed as

HumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleProstateProstatic NeoplasmsUltrasonographyBiopsyDetectionImagingMagnetic resonance imagingProstate cancerScreening

Identifiers

PMID29064054

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.