ArticleReviews in urology2018
Differentiating Molecular Risk Assessments for Prostate Cancer.
Article in Reviews in urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical utility of the exosome based ExoDx Prostate(IntelliScore) EPI test in men presenting for initial Biopsy with a PSA 2-10 ng/mL.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2020Trial
- Potential Role of Seven Proteomics Tissue Biomarkers for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer in Urine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Telomere-based risk models for the early diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2021Article
- How should radiologists incorporate non-imaging prostate cancer biomarkers into daily practice?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2020Review
- Clinical proteomics for prostate cancer: understanding prostate cancer pathology and protein biomarkers for improved disease management.Clinical proteomics · 2020Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is critically important to the evolving goals of prostate biopsy to find clinically significant cancer with lethal potential and avoid detection of indolent disease. Better tests and markers are required for improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and avoidance of biopsies in men with indolent disease. Currently, there are myriad alternative prostate cancer risk-assessment tests available derived from serum and urine that are designed to improve the specificity for detection of "significant" prostate cancer. Herein we discuss these tests and their clinical implications.
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.