ArticleCentral European journal of urology2023
Diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of micro-ultrasound guided biopsies in patients with suspected prostate cancer.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Micro-ultrasonography- vs MRI-targeted biopsy in prostate cancer: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BJU international · 2026Pooled it
- Micro-ultrasound versus mpMRI for targeted prostate biopsy: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and clinical integration.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: New technologies to improve quality of prostate biopsies are appearing in clinical practice.We evaluate the performance of a micro-ultrasound device and the Prostate Risk Identification using MicroUltraSound (PRI-MUS) score in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Material and methods: We retrospectively reviewed data of 139 biopsy- naïve patients with suspicion of prostate cancer, who underwent diagnostic MRI and micro-ultrasonography (microUS), followed by transrectal prostatic biopsy (systematic ±targeted) under local anesthetic. The main objective was to evaluate the performance of the Prostate Risk Identification using MicroUltraSound (PRI-MUS) score in detecting csPCa, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) ≥2. Results: Of all patients, 97 (70%) were found to have PCa, and 62 (45%) having csPCa.Among 100 patients with positive microUS (PRI-MUS score ≥3), 23 (23%) had ncsPCa and 57 (57%) were diagnosed with csPCa (ISUP ≥2); and in 39 patients with negative microUS, 12 (31%) were diagnosed with ncsPCa and 5 (13%) with csPCa.A PRI-MUS score ≥3 presented a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 92%, 44%, 57% and 95%, respectively, for the detection of csPCa.The PRI-MUS score had higher areas under the curve than Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) both for targeted (AUC 0.801 vs 0.733) and systematic + targeted (AUC 0.776 vs 0.694) biopsies for csPCa detection. Conclusions: In our cohort, microUS performed well as a diagnostic tool through an easily implementable scale. MicroUS presented similar sensitivity and higher specificity than MRI in detecting csPCa. Further multicenter prospective studies may clarify its role in prostate cancer diagnosis.
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.