ArticleMedicine2020
A valuable MRI examination method for prostate cancer screening.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Three-dimensional ultrasound integrating nomogram and the blood flow image for prostate cancer diagnosis and biopsy: A retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the value of the 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score in prostate cancer (PCa) screening.Forty PCa patients diagnosed by pathology from December 2014 to September 2018 were recruited as the PCa group; 60 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were recruited as the benign group. Patients from both groups underwent 1.5T MRI scanning. The prostate ADC values, exponential apparent diffusion coefficient (eADC) values, and PI-RADS scores of patients from the 2 groups were compared. The different methods for PCa diagnosis were compared.The ADC values of patients in the PCa group were significantly lower than those in the benign group, whereas the eADC values of patients were significantly higher than those in the benign group, with statistically significant differences (P < .05). The differences in the PI-RADS scores of patients from the 2 groups were statistically significant (P < .05). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve results showed that the ADC value combined with the PI-RADS score was superior to the ADC value or the PI-RADS score alone in sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index for PCa diagnosis. By comparing the area under the curve (AUC) of each ROC curve from the different diagnostic methods, the combination of ADC value and PI-RADS score showed the largest area.The ADC value from 1.5T MRI combined with the PI-RADS score could be used as the standard for PCa screening, which would effectively improve screening for PCa and be valuable for clinical applications.
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.