ArticleEuropean urology open science2022
External Validation of the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group Risk Calculator and the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in a Swedish Population-based Screening Cohort.
Article in European urology open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Recent advances in discriminating prostate cancer from benign prostatic diseases in the pre-biopsy population.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2026Review
- Article
- Risk-stratified Approach to Implementing Population-based Prostate Cancer Screening in Five Pilot Sites in the European Union: A Protocol for the PRAISE-U Project.European urology open science · 2024Article
- The Capio Prostate Cancer Center Model for Prostate Cancer Diagnostics-Real-world Evidence from 2018 to 2022.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of a Prostate Biopsy Risk Calculator in Black Men.The Journal of urology · 2024Article
- Screening for prostate cancer: evidence, ongoing trials, policies and knowledge gaps.BMJ oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: External validation of risk calculators (RCs) is necessary to determine their clinical applicability beyond the setting in which these were developed. Objective: To assess the performance of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer RC (RPCRC) and the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group RC (PBCG-RC). Design setting and participants: We used data from the prospective, population-based STHLM3 screening study, performed in 2012-2015. Participants with prostate-specific antigen ≥3 ng/ml who underwent systematic prostate biopsies were included. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Probabilities for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2, were calculated for each participant. External validity was assessed by calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness for both original and recalibrated models. Results and limitations: Out of 5841 men, 1054 (18%) had csPCa. Distribution of risk predictions differed between RCs; median risks for csPCa using the RPCRC and PBCG-RC were 3.3% (interquartile range [IQR] 2.1-7.1%) and 20% (IQR 15-28%), respectively. The correlation between RC risk estimates on individual level was moderate (Spearman's Conclusions: Assessment of calibration is essential to ensure the clinical value of risk prediction tools. The PBCG-RC provided clinical benefit in its current version online. On the contrary, the RPCRC cannot be recommended in this setting. Patient summary: Predicting the probability of finding prostate cancer on biopsy differed between two assessed risk calculators. After recalibration, the agreement of the models improved, and both were shown to be clinically useful.
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.