ArticleEuropean urology open science2023
Comparison of Rotterdam and Barcelona Magnetic Resonance Imaging Risk Calculators for Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Article in European urology open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Integrating radiological and clinical data for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with machine learning techniques.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- External validation of the barcelona magnetic resonance imaging predictive model for detecting significant prostate cancer including men receiving 5-alpha reductase inhibitors.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- The effectiveness of mapping-targeted biopsies on the index lesion in transperineal prostate biopsies.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- Validation of the Barcelona-MRI predictive model when PI-RADS v2.1 is used with trans-perineal prostate biopsies.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of 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
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based risk calculators (MRI-RCs) individualise the likelihood of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and improve candidate selection for prostate biopsy beyond the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Objective: To compare the Barcelona (BCN) and Rotterdam (ROT) MRI-RCs in an entire population and according to the PI-RADS categories. Design setting and participants: A prospective comparison of BCN- and ROT-RC in 946 men with suspected prostate cancer in whom systematic biopsy was performed, as well as target biopsies of PI-RADS ≥3 lesions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Saved biopsies and undetected csPCa (grade group ≥2) were determined. Results and limitations: The csPCa detection was 40.8%. The median risks of csPCa from BCN- and ROT-RC were, respectively, 67.1% and 25% in men with csPCa, whereas 10.5% and 3% in those without csPCa ( Conclusions: ROT-RC provided a lower and narrower range of csPCa probabilities than BCN-RC. BCN-RC showed a net benefit over ROT-RC in the entire population. However, BCN-RC was useful in men with PI-RADS 3 and 4, whereas ROT-RC was useful only in those with PI-RADS 3. No RC seemed to be helpful in men with negative MRI and PI-RADS 5. Patient summary: Barcelona risk calculator was more helpful than Rotterdam risk calculator to select candidates for prostate biopsy.
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.