ReviewF1000Research2018
Advances in prostate cancer imaging.
Review in F1000Research, 2018. 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.
- Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Expression in Patients with Primary Prostate Cancer: Diagnostic and Prognostic Value in Positron Emission Tomography-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Comparison of [Cancers · 2022Article
- Advanced nanoengineered-customized point-of-care tools for prostate-specific antigen.Mikrochimica acta · 2021Review
- Novel Biological and Molecular Characterization in Radiopharmaceutical Preclinical Design.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Radiomics and Prostate MRI: Current Role and Future Applications.Journal of imaging · 2021Review
- Anatomy and Imaging of Rat Prostate: Practical Monitoring in Experimental Cancer-Induced Protocols.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Detection Rate ofCancers · 2019Review
- Radiolabelled choline versus PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer restaging: a meta-analysis.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many exciting advances in medical imaging have been made in recent years that will alter the way we diagnose, stage, and treat patients with prostate cancer. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is emerging as the main modality for prostate cancer imaging. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and shear wave elastography may be strong alternatives in patients who cannot undergo MRI. Prostate-specific membrane antigen-directed positron emission tomography/computed tomography has proven to be valuable in the primary staging of high-risk disease and for detecting disease in patients with biochemical recurrence. As more studies continue to emerge, it is becoming clear that the standard algorithm for diagnosing and staging prostate cancer will undergo significant changes in the near future.
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.