ArticleBJUI compass2021
A multi-institutional randomized controlled trial comparing first-generation transrectal high-resolution micro-ultrasound with conventional frequency transrectal ultrasound for prostate biopsy.
Article in BJUI compass, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Standalone 29-MHz micro-ultrasound for classifying clinically significant prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of prospective studies.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Pooled it
- The Role of Micro-Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer Detection.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using targeted MRI-informed microultrasound biopsy.European radiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Value of Micro-Ultrasound in Identifying Local Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy.The Prostate · 2026Article
- Micro-Ultrasound in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Review and Comparison with Multiparametric MRI.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Review
- Evaluation of prostate cancer detection using micro-ultrasound versus MRI through co-registration to whole-mount pathology.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer diagnosis: a review.World journal of urology · 2023Review
- Review
- Micro-Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate and Bladder Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Data.Cancers · 2022Review
- Alternatives for MRI in Prostate Cancer Diagnostics-Review of Current Ultrasound-Based Techniques.Cancers · 2022Review
- Multiparametric ultrasound and micro-ultrasound in prostate cancer: a comprehensive review.The British journal of radiology · 2022Review
- New imaging modalities to consider for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance.World journal of urology · 2022Review
- Article
- Article
- Multiparametric ultrasound of prostate: role in prostate cancer diagnosis.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To study high-frequency 29 MHz transrectal side-fire micro-ultrasound (micro-US) for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on prostate biopsy, and validate an image interpretation protocol for micro-US imaging of the prostate. Materials and methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed where 1676 men with indications for prostate biopsy and without known prostate cancer were randomized 1:1 to micro-US vs conventional end-fire ultrasound (conv-US) transrectal-guided prostate biopsy across five sites in North America. The trial was split into two phases, before and after training on a micro-US image interpretation protocol that was developed during the trial using data from the pre-training micro-US arm. Investigators received a standardized training program mid-trial, and the post-training micro-US data were used to examine the training effect. Results: Detection of csPCa (the primary outcome) was no better with the first-generation micro-US system than with conv-US in the overall population (34.6% vs 36.6%, respectively, Conclusion: Micro-US provided no clear benefit over conv-US for the detection of csPCa at biopsy. However, it became evident during the trial that training and increasing experience with this novel technology improved the performance of this first-generation system.
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.