ReviewCancers2023
Comparative Assessment of Different Ultrasound Technologies in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standalone 29-MHz micro-ultrasound for classifying clinically significant prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of prospective studies.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Pooled it
- Primary Neoplasms of the Seminal Vesicles: A Narrative Review of Carcinoma and the Rarer Non-Epithelial and Biphasic Tumours.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Sweep and Scrutinize: Improving Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Efficacy by Combining Whole-Gland Contrast-Enhanced Transrectal Ultrasound With Fixed-Plane Flash-Replenishment Imaging.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026Article
- Primary healthcare-friendly prostate cancer prediction model using routine clinical parameters: a multicenter study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Transrectal ultrasonographic parameters combined with total serum exosomes for the assessment of bone metastases in prostate cancer.Open life sciences · 2026Article
- A Novel Deep Learning Framework for Liver Fibrosis Staging and Etiology Diagnosis Using Integrated Liver-Spleen Elastography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Application of mean maximum Young's modulus value as a new parameter for differential diagnosis of prostate diseases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Time-Intensity Curve parametric imaging as a novel quantitative biomarker: enhancing diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater reliability in prostate cancer ultrasound.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- A Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA)-Based Phantom for Prostate Cancer Detection Using Multiparametric Ultrasound: A Validation Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Research on the mean maximum Young's modulus value as a new diagnostic parameter for prostate cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of different ultrasound scanning technologies in the detection of prostate cancer. A systematic search was conducted using the Cochrane Guidelines for Screening and Diagnostic Tests. We performed a systematic search in the international databases PubMed, Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane Library. Searches were designed to find all studies that evaluated Micro-US, mpUS, SWE and CEUS as the main detection modalities for prostate cancer. This study was registered with Research Registry of systematic review and meta-analysis. The QUADAS-2 tool was utilized to perform quality assessment and bias analysis. The literature search generated 1376 studies. Of these, 320 studies were screened for eligibility, with 1056 studies being excluded. Overall, 26 studies with a total of 6370 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity for grayscale, CEUS, SWE, Micro-US and mpUS modalities were 0.66 (95% CI 0.54-0.73) 0.73 (95% CI 0.58-0.88), 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.90), 0.85 (95% CI 0.76-0.94) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.71-1.03), respectively. Moreover, the pooled specificity for grayscale, CEUS, SWE, Micro-US and mpUS modalities were 0.56 (95% CI 0.21-0.90), 0.78 (95% CI 0.67-0.88), 0.76 (95% CI 0.65-0.88), 0.43 (95% CI 0.28-0.59) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.54-0.81), respectively. In terms of sensitivity, substantial heterogeneity between studies was detected (I
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.