ArticlePeerJ2021
An evaluation of factors affecting pain during transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy: a real-life scenario in a retrospective cohort study.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initial pain score during viscous lidocaine instillation and clinical characteristics as predictors of overall pain in fusion prostate biopsy.Journal of biological methods · 2025Article
- Comparison of procedural anxiety and pain associated with conventional transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy to magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy: a prospective cohort trial.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriprostatic infiltration anesthesia (PPIA) and intrarectal topical anesthesia (IRTA) are recommended methods to control pain in transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx). This study evaluates the factors affecting pain during TRUS-Bx, considering the pathologies involved in anorectal pain etiology and comparing the effectiveness of local anesthesia techniques in providing patient comfort. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated 477 consecutive patients with TRUS-Bx for elevated Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), abnormal rectal examination findings, or both. Patients were grouped as local anesthesia methods for pain control during TRUS-Bx. Both groups were compared in terms of age, body mass index, clinical T stage, PSA, prostate volume, number of biopsy cores, type of anesthesia, previous biopsy history, and presence of prostate cancer. We used a visual analog pain scale (VAS) to evaluate the patient's pain status; pre-procedure (VAS-0), during probe insertion (VAS-I), administration of anesthetic (VAS-A), and simultaneous with the biopsy procedure itself (VAS-Bx). For PPIA and IRTA, 4 ml lidocaine 20 mg/ml injection and 5 g 5% prilocaine-5% lidocaine cream was used, respectively.
resultsThe PPIA was used 74.2% (
conclusionThree factors play roles as independent variables associated with the pain in TRUS-Bx; abnormal rectal examination findings, collection of more than twelve core samples during the biopsy, and the type of anesthesia used. Compared with PPIA, IRTA does not improve pain related to probe insertion, and using IRTA results in higher pain scores for biopsy-related pain. Thus, we recommend a PPIA to lower biopsy-related pain.
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.