ArticlePeerJ2023
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mixed reality navigation system for ultrasound-guided and fusion biopsies using markerless instrument tracking.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Enhancing Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Comparative Analysis of Combined Fusion and Systematic Biopsy Methods-A Single-Center Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A two-stage model for precise identification and Gleason grading of clinically significant prostate cancer: a hybrid approach.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- The role of urology and radiology in prostate biopsy: current trends and future perspectives.World journal of urology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To examine the accuracy of transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy (FB) in identifying men with prostate cancer (PCa) that has reached a clinically relevant stage. Methods: This investigation enrolled 459 males. In 210 of these patients (FB group), transperineal MRI/US fusion-guided biopsies were performed on the suspicious region, and in 249 others, a systematic biopsy (SB) was performed (SB group). We compared these groups using Gleason scores and rates of cancer detection. Results: PCa cases counted 198/459 (43.1%), including 94/249 (37.8%) in the SB group and 104/210 (49.5%) in the FB group. FB was associated with higher overall diagnostic accuracy relative to SB (88.5% and 72.3%, Conclusion: Transperineal MRI-US fusion targeted biopsy is superior to the systematic one as an approach to diagnosing clinically significant PCa, as it is a viable technical approach to 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.