Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30535716›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of urology2019

Developing a five-step training model for transperineal prostate biopsies in a naïve residents' group: a prospective observational randomised study of two different techniques.

Guglielmo Mantica, Andrea Pacchetti, Roberta Aimar, Mattia Cerasuolo, Federico Dotta, Alberto Olivero, Giovannalberto Pini, Giovanni Passaretti, Massimo Maffezzini, Carlo Terrone

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Guglielmo ManticaDepartment of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16130, Genova, Italy. guglielmo.mantica@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4361-4523
Andrea PacchettiDepartment of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16130, Genova, Italy.
Roberta AimarDepartment of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Mattia CerasuoloDepartment of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16130, Genova, Italy.
Federico DottaDepartment of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16130, Genova, Italy.
Alberto OliveroDepartment of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16130, Genova, Italy.
Giovannalberto PiniDepartment of Urology, San Raffaele Turro Hospital, San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni PassarettiDepartment of Urology, San Raffaele Turro Hospital, San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Massimo MaffezziniDepartment of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16130, Genova, Italy.
Carlo TerroneDepartment of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16130, Genova, Italy.
Ospedale Policlinico San Martino · ITSan Raffaele University of Rome · ITUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate a five-step training model for transperineal prostate biopsies (TPPB) and the differences in terms of the detection rate (DR) and the ease of execution when using either the "fan technique" (FT) or the use of a Free Hand technique (FH).

methodsA prospective observational randomised study was conducted from September 2015 to November 2017. Six naïve residents, who underwent the same five-steps training model, were randomly subdivided into two different groups of three residents based on the selected TPPB technique: A (FT) and B (FH). Patient characteristics (age, PSA, prostatic volume, DRE, MRI), intraoperative (operative time, number of samples) and postoperative parameters (histologic, pain) were evaluated in the 2 groups. The overall and stratified DR for PSA ranges and prostate volume (PV), operative time and complications were compared.

resultsThe overall detection rate was very high in both groups (FT 58.2% vs FH 59.6%) and not statistically different between the two techniques. There were no differences in terms of complication rates and pain. The FH showed a better detection rate in prostates smaller than 40 cc (p = 0.023) and a faster operative time (p = 0.025) compared to FT.

conclusionsWithin the TPPB, FH is associated with a higher detection rate in patients with prostate < 40 cc compared to an FT when performed by inexperienced trainees. Standardised training organised in consecutive steps seems to contribute to the achievement of overall high detection rates with both methods.

Indexed as

BiopsyInternship and ResidencyModels, EducationalProstateAgedHumansMalePerineumProspective StudiesProstate biopsyProstate cancerResidentsTrainingTransperineal prostate biopsy

Identifiers

PMID30535716
OpenAlexW2903833149

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.