Is There Enough Support for a New Prostate Grading System Factoring in Intraductal Carcinoma and Cribriform Cancer?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate: To Grade or Not to Grade.Cancers · 2023
   Review
2. Narrative review of prostate cancer grading systems: will the Gleason scores be replaced by the Grade Groups?Translational andrology and urology · 2021
   Review
3. Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate.Pathologica · 2020
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Improved Prostate Cancer Biopsy Grading by Incorporation of Invasive Cribriform and Intraductal Carcinoma in the 2014 Grade Groups.2020

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as