ReviewProstate cancer2022
Diagnostic Accuracy of Predictive Models in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Prostate cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in enhancing prostate-specific antigen assessment for prostate cancer: a cross-sectional study.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- A visualized machine learning model using noninvasive parameters to differentiate men with and without prostatic carcinoma before biopsy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- How neighborhood environment modified the effects of power outages on multiple health outcomes in New York state?Hygiene and environmental health advances · 2022Article
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
Aim: Accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) has a fundamental role in clinical and patient care. Recent advances in diagnostic testing and marker lead to standardized interpretation and increased prescription by clinicians to improve the detection of clinically significant PCa and select patients who strictly require targeted biopsies. Methods: In this study, we present a systematic review of the overall diagnostic accuracy of each testing panel regarding the panel details. In this meta-analysis, using a structured search, Web of Science and PubMed databases were searched up to 23 September 2019 with no restrictions and filters. The study's outcome was the AUC and 95% confidence interval of prediction models. This index was reported as an overall and based on the WHO region and models with/without MRI. Results: The thirteen final articles included 25,691 people. The overall AUC and 95% CI in thirteen studies were 0.78 and 95% CI: 0.73-0.82. The weighted average AUC in the countries of the Americas region was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.75), and in European countries, it was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72-0.88). In four studies with MRI, the average weighted AUC was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.90), while in other articles where MRI was not a parameter in the diagnostic model, the mean AUC was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.76). Conclusions: The present study's findings showed that MRI significantly improved the detection accuracy of prostate cancer and had the highest discrimination to distinguish candidates for biopsy.
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.