ArticleSaudi medical journal2021
Transperineal versus transrectal multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion targeted prostate biopsy.
Article in Saudi medical journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- MRI software and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy versus transrectal route in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Meta Analysis of Efficacy and Safety of Prostate Biopsy: A Comparison Between Transperineal and Transrectal Approach.Urology research & practice · 2025Review
- Review
- Article
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
objectivesTo compare transperineal biopsies (TPBx) with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSBx) in order to provide evidence, making clinicians able to select the appropriate biopsy approach under different conditions.
methodsA comparative prospective study, conducted in King Khalid University Hospital (KKUH) and King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre (KFSH&RC), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, between March 2019 and February 2020. All patients with raised prostate-specific antigen or atypical digital rectal examination findings were subjected to multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Those with positive findings were referred to targeted fusion- guided biopsy either TPBx or TRUSBx, randomly. Complication rate, cancer detection rate, and procedure time were recorded.
resultsTransperineal biopsies and TRUSBx had an equivalent complication rate. However, both case detection rate and clinically significant cancer detection rate were significantly higher in TPBx versus TRUSBx (45.1% versus 29.1%,
conclusionNo difference in complication rate was detected between the 2 procedures; however, TPBx was more effective for cancer detection in general and clinically significant cancer detection in particular.
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.