Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37409098›Full record

ReviewProstate international2023

Diagnostic performance of MRI for prediction of recurrent prostate cancer after high-intensity focused ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hyungwoo Ahn, Sung Il Hwang, Hak Jong Lee, Sang Youn Kim, Jeong Yeon Cho, Hakmin Lee, Sung Kyu Hong, Seok-Soo Byun, Taek Min Kim

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Prostate international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Focal therapy for prostate cancer.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hyungwoo AhnDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Sung Il HwangDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Hak Jong LeeDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Sang Youn KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Jeong Yeon ChoDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Hakmin LeeDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Sung Kyu HongDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Seok-Soo ByunDepartment of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Taek Min KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital · KRSeoul National University Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This article aims to evaluate the pooled diagnostic performance control MRI for prediction of recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) after high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Materials and methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases up to December 31, 2021, were searched. We included studies providing 2×2 contingency table for diagnostic performance of MRI in predicting recurrent PCa after HIFU, using control biopsy as reference standard. The quality of the included studies was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). Sensitivity and specificity were pooled and displayed in a summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) plot. Meta-regression analysis using clinically relevant covariates was performed for the causes of heterogeneity. Results: Nineteen studies (703 patients) were included. All included studies satisfied at least four of the seven QUADAS-2 domains. Pooled sensitivity was 0.81 (95% CI 0.72-0.90) with specificity of 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.96), with area under the SROC curve of 0.81. Larger studies including more than 50 patients showed relatively poor sensitivity (0.68 vs. 0.84) and specificity (0.75 vs. 0.93). The diagnostic performance of studies reporting higher nadir serum prostate-specific antigen levels (>1 ng/mL) after HIFU was inferior, and differed significantly in sensitivity (0.54 vs. 0.78) rather than specificity (0.85 vs. 0.91). Conclusions: Although MRI showed adequate diagnostic performance in predicting PCa recurrence after HIFU, these results may have been exaggerated.

Indexed as

High-intensity focused ultrasound ablationLocal neoplasm recurrenceMagnetic resonance imagingMeta-analysisProstate neoplasmsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37409098
PMCPMC10318330
OpenAlexW4312112746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.