Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32436074›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2021

Comparing a new risk prediction model with prostate cancer risk calculator apps in a Taiwanese population.

I- Hsuan Alan Chen, Chi-Hsiang Chu, Jen-Tai Lin, Jeng -Yu Tsai, Chia-Cheng Yu, Ashwin Narasimha Sridhar, Manish Chand, Prasanna Sooriakumaran

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

I- Hsuan Alan ChenDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, 386 Ta-Chung 1st Rd., Zuoying, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. alan_aries@yahoo.com.tw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2720-7549
Chi-Hsiang ChuDepartment of Statistics, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Jen-Tai LinDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, 386 Ta-Chung 1st Rd., Zuoying, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Jeng -Yu TsaiDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, 386 Ta-Chung 1st Rd., Zuoying, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chia-Cheng YuDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, 386 Ta-Chung 1st Rd., Zuoying, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Ashwin Narasimha SridharDepartment of Uro-Oncology, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Manish ChandDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Prasanna SooriakumaranDepartment of Uro-Oncology, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWUniversity College Hospital · GBNational Cheng Kung University · TWTri-Service General Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop a novel Taiwanese prostate cancer (PCa) risk model for predicting PCa, comparing its predictive performance with that of two well-established PCa risk calculator apps.

methods1545 men undergoing prostate biopsies in a Taiwanese tertiary medical center between 2012 and 2019 were identified retrospectively. A five-fold cross-validated logistic regression risk model was created to calculate the probabilities of PCa and high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≧ 7), to compare those of the Rotterdam and Coral apps. Discrimination was analyzed using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration was graphically evaluated with the goodness-of-fit test. Decision-curve analysis was performed for clinical utility. At different risk thresholds to biopsy, the proportion of biopsies saved versus low- and high-grade PCa missed were presented.

resultsOverall, 278/1309 (21.2%) patients were diagnosed with PCa, and 181 out of 278 (65.1%) patients had high-grade PCa. Both our model and the Rotterdam app demonstrated better discriminative ability than the Coral app for detection of PCa (AUC: 0.795 vs 0.792 vs 0.697, DeLong's method: P < 0.001) and high-grade PCa (AUC: 0.869 vs 0.873 vs 0.767, P < 0.001). Using a ≥ 10% risk threshold for high-grade PCa to biopsy, our model could save 67.2% of total biopsies; among these saved biopsies, only 3.4% high-grade PCa would be missed.

conclusionOur new logistic regression model, similar to the Rotterdam app, outperformed the Coral app in the prediction of PCa and high-grade PCa. Additionally, our model could save unnecessary biopsies and avoid missing clinically significant PCa in the Taiwanese population.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsAgedHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentTaiwanDiagnosismHealthMobile appsProstate cancerProstate-specific antigenRisk calculator

Identifiers

PMID32436074
OpenAlexW3027128749

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.