Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30924451›Full record

Observational studyAsian journal of andrology

Phi-based risk calculators performed better in the prediction of prostate cancer in the Chinese population.

Yi-Shuo Wu, Xiao-Jian Fu, Rong Na, Ding-Wei Ye, Jun Qi, Xiao-Ling Lin, Fang Liu, Jian Gong, Ning Zhang, Guang-Liang Jiang and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Asian journal of andrology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Yi-Shuo WuDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Xiao-Jian FuDepartment of Surgery, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Rong NaDepartment of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Ding-Wei YeDepartment of Urology, Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China.
Jun QiDepartment of Urology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200092, China.
Xiao-Ling LinUrology Research Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Fang LiuUrology Research Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Jian GongDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Ning ZhangDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Guang-Liang JiangDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Hao-Wen JiangDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Qiang DingDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Jianfeng XuUrology Research Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Ying-Hao SunDepartment of Urology, Changhai Hospital, The Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China.
Fudan University · CNChanghai Hospital · CNFudan University Shanghai Cancer Center · CNHuashan Hospital · CNRuijin Hospital · CNXinHua Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk prediction models including the Prostate Health Index (phi) for prostate cancer have been well established and evaluated in the Western population. The aim of this study is to build phi-based risk calculators in a prostate biopsy population and evaluate their performance in predicting prostate cancer (PCa) and high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7) in the Chinese population. We developed risk calculators based on 635 men who underwent initial prostate biopsy. Then, we validated the performance of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), phi, and the risk calculators in an additional observational cohort of 1045 men. We observed that the phi-based risk calculators (risk calculators 2 and 4) outperformed the PSA-based risk calculator for predicting PCa and high-grade PCa in the training cohort. In the validation study, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for risk calculators 2 and 4 reached 0.91 and 0.92, respectively, for predicting PCa and high-grade PCa, respectively; the AUC values were better than those for risk calculator 1 (PSA-based model with an AUC of 0.81 and 0.82, respectively) (all P < 0.001). Such superiority was also observed in the stratified population with PSA ranging from 2.0 ng ml

Indexed as

AgedAsian PeopleBiopsyChinaHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingProstateProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentProstate-Specific AntigenChinesep2PSAprostate biopsyProstate Health Indexrisk calculator

Identifiers

PMID30924451
PMCPMC6859657
OpenAlexW2923355955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.