SynthesisMedicine2019
Magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted biopsy in risk classification among patients on active surveillance: A diagnostic meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity and accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS) procedure.
methodsWe searched databases to identify relevant studies which compared MRI-TB with systemic biopsy for diagnosing prostate cancer in patients on AS. Outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve (AUC) and publication bias of AS group, confirmatory biopsy group and follow-up biopsy group.
resultsFourteen articles involving 1693 patients were included. In AS group, the sensitivity was 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.68), specificity was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.87-0.90), NLR was 0.43 (0.31-0.60), PLR was 4.90 (3.50-6.86), DOR was 12.75 (7.22-22.51), and AUC was 0.8645. In confirmatory biopsy group, the sensitivity was 0.67 (0.59-0.74), specificity was 0.89 (0.86-0.91), NLR was 0.42 (0.27-0.65), PLR was 4.94 (3.88-6.30), DOR was 14.54 (9.60-22.02), and AUC was 0.8812. In follow-up biopsy group, the sensitivity was 0.35 (0.22-0.51), specificity was 0.88 (0.82-0.92), NLR was 0.76 (0.52-1.11), PLR was 3.06 (1.71-5.50), DOR was 4.41 (2.15-9.03), and AUC was 0.8367.
conclusionMRI-TB has a moderate-to-high diagnostic accuracy for diagnosing and reclassifying patients on AS with high specificity and AUC value under the SROC curve.
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.