ArticleBMC gastroenterology2023
Value of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in endoscopy negative biopsy patients with rectal lesions.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative study on the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided transluminal (transvaginal/transrectal) and transabdominal core needle biopsy in patients with pelvic masses: a retrospective analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the value of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy in endoscopy negative biopsy patients with rectal lesions.
methods150 endoscopy negative biopsy result rectal lesions adopted the transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. Based on whether the patients received contrast-enhanced ultrasound examination or not before the biopsies, all enrolled cases were divided into TRUS guided group and contrast-enhanced TRUS (CE-TRUS) guided group, and the safety and diagnostic performances were analyzed retrospectively.
resultsWe obtained adequate specimens in the majority of cases (98.7%,148/150); There were no complications identified in our study. 126 patients received contrast-enhanced TRUS examination before biopsy to evaluate vascular perfusion and necrosis. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy of all biopsies were 89.1%, 100%,100%, 70.4%, and 91.3% respectively; The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for TRUS-guided biopsy and CE-TRUS guided biopsy were 73.7%, 100%,100%, 50%,79.2% and 92.1%,100%,100%,75%,93.6% separately; The increase in correct diagnoses was significant (p < 0.05) between TRUS guided biopsy and CE-TRUS guided biopsy.
conclusionTRUS-guided biopsy is a reliable procedure that can be augmented by endoscopic biopsy techniques if the biopsy yields negative results. CE-TRUS might assist in the location of the biopsy and decrease sampling errors.
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.