Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30108376›Full record

SynthesisProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2019

Accuracy of the magnetic resonance imaging pathway in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Niranjan J Sathianathen, Mohit Butaney, Connie Bongiorno, Badrinath R Konety, Damien M Bolton, Nathan Lawrentschuk

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. A comparative study ofBMC medical imaging · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. A review of prostate cancer imaging, positron emission tomography, and radiopharmaceutical-based therapy.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2020
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
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

6 authors.

Niranjan J SathianathenUniversity of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Urology Unit and Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. niranjan19@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3710-014X
Mohit ButaneyUniversity of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Urology Unit and Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4760-4026
Connie BongiornoDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Badrinath R KonetyDepartment of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Damien M BoltonUniversity of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Urology Unit and Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Nathan LawrentschukUniversity of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Urology Unit and Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent targeted biopsy ('MRI pathway') have been widely adopted in routine clinical practice, it is still a common practice to perform systematic biopsy concurrently, because the accuracy of the MRI pathway is yet to be fully defined. This systematic review of the literature assessed the sensitivity of the MRI pathway for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.

methodsMultiple databases were searched up to May 2017 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement for studies assessing the accuracy of MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) compared to a reference standard which consisted of both MRGB and systematic biopsy with at least 20-cores. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer defined as Gleason ≥7 disease.

resultsA total of 15 studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. Overall, studies were assessed to be of low quality with inadequate blinding of personnel, which could introduce performance and detection bias. The calculated summary sensitivity of the MRI pathway was 78.3% [95%CI 75.0-81.4%]. There was moderate heterogeneity between the included studies (I

conclusionThe MRI pathway cannot yet be solely relied upon to diagnose clinically significant disease and hence additional systematic sampling should still be performed during the biopsy procedure.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingBiopsyDisease ManagementHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleProstatic NeoplasmsPublication BiasReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID30108376

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.