Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33457275›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2020

Transrectal ultrasound biopsy of the prostate: does it still have a role in prostate cancer diagnosis?

Andrew Moe, Dickon Hayne

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. A New Labeling Method ofWorld journal of nuclear medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew MoeDepartment of Urology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
Dickon HayneDepartment of Urology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia.
Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group · AUFiona Stanley Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy of the prostate has been a standard diagnostic approach for prostate cancer over the past thirty years. Today, the role of TRUS biopsy is being challenged by transperineal (TP) prostate biopsy due to concerns over the safety and diagnostic yield of TRUS biopsy. TRUS biopsy still offers a convenient, reliable and accessible tool for diagnosing prostate cancer in the majority of patients. It continues to play a role in prostate cancer diagnosis, especially where hospital resource allocation is limited, including the public sector. TRUS biopsy has low rates of severe complications, although there remains room for improvement in current practice to improve the tolerability and reduce the incidence of post-biopsy infection.

Indexed as

biopsyprostate cancerTransrectal ultrasound (TRUS)

Identifiers

PMID33457275
PMCPMC7807378
OpenAlexW2990810222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.