ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
Is the Ellipsoid Formula Reliable in Prostate MRI?
Article in Current health sciences journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Central gland detachment following prostate artery embolization: incidence, risk factors and clinical outcomes.CVIR endovascular · 2026Article
- Diagnostic and Clinical Impact of Imaging Modality on PSA Density: TRUS Versus MRI in Gray-Zone Prostate Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Article
- The diagnostic outcome of CT-guided rib biopsies: a retrospective cohort study.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- Outlier data in volume calculations of uterine fibroids comparing ellipsoid formula and voxel-based segmentation.BMC medical imaging · 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
Our study seeks to study the accuracy of the ellipsoidal formula in prostate MRI of different sizes and to establish the limits of its use. The study included 31 patients with a well-visualized, intact prostatic capsule, excluding malignantly transformed prostates, as well as treated prostates, in which the contrast between the prostatic capsule and parenchyma is reduced. Each patient's prostatic volume was recalculated according to the ellipsoidal formula, and then it was compared with the prostatic volume calculated by the segmentation method. The two calculated volumes were similar, in some cases almost identical, with a slight tendency to underestimate prostate volume below 100cm3, in total in 18 cases, on average by 7.6% (+/-6%), overestimation of those with a volume over 100cm3, a total of 13 cases, on average by 3.2% (+/-2.5%), and of all, in 4 cases the difference between the two formulas was below 1%. There was no statistical difference between the two variables, Student's t-test p-value=0.039. With a precision of 92% (+/-6%), the ellipsoidal formula can be considered accurate when it is correctly performed, but if we take into account the importance that PSA density is starting to have in diagnosis, treatment and follow-up, the calculation of a secondary value through the segmentation method or high-precision software can be motivated when the ellipsoidal formula returns a value close to a threshold.
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.