Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34782549›Full record

Observational studyAsian journal of andrology

Prostate Health Index (

Jia-Qi Yan, Da Huang, Jing-Yi Huang, Xiao-Hao Ruan, Xiao-Ling Lin, Zu-Jun Fang, Yi Gao, Hao-Wen Jiang, Yi-Shuo Wu, Rong Na and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Asian journal of andrology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jia-Qi YanDepartment of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Da HuangDepartment of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Jing-Yi HuangDepartment of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Xiao-Hao RuanDepartment of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Xiao-Ling LinDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Zu-Jun FangDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Yi GaoDepartment of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Hao-Wen JiangDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Yi-Shuo WuDepartment of Urology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China.
Rong NaDepartment of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Dan-Feng XuDepartment of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To analyze the performance of the Prostate Health Index (phi) and its derivatives for predicting Gleason score (GS) upgrading between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) in the Chinese population, an observational, prospective RP cohort consisting of 351 patients from two medical centers was established from January 2017 to September 2020. Pathological reclassification was determined by the Gleason Grade Group (GG). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and logistic regression (LR) models were used to evaluate the predictive performance of predictors. In clinically low-risk patients with biopsy GG ≤2, phi (odds ratio [OR] = 1.80, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.14-2.82, P = 0.01) and its derivative phi density (PHID; OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.30-4.20, P = 0.005) were significantly associated with upgrading to GG ≥3 after RP, and the results were confirmed by multivariable analysis. Similar results were observed in patients with biopsy GG of 1 for the prediction of upgrading to RP GG≥2. Compared to the base model (AUC = 0.59), addition of the phi or PHID could provide additional predictive value for GS upgrading in low-risk patients (AUC = 0.69 and 0.71, respectively, both P < 0.05). In conclusion, phi and PHID could predict GS upgrading after RP in clinically low-risk patients.

Indexed as

ProstateProstatic NeoplasmsBiopsyHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingProspective StudiesProstatectomyProstate-Specific AntigenProstate-Specific AntigenGleason scoreprostate biopsyprostate cancerProstate Health Indexradical prostatectomyupgrading

Identifiers

PMID34782549
PMCPMC9295477
OpenAlexW3212186577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.