ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2024
Prostate volume on computed tomography correlates well with magnetic resonance imaging measurements and is reproducible across rater training levels.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData are lacking for the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) in measuring prostate size, which can streamline care and prevent invasive procedures. We evaluate agreement and intra/inter-observer variability in prostate sizing between CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) planimetry for a wide range of gland sizes.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 700 patients who underwent MRI fusion biopsy at a single institution and identified 89 patients that had a CT within 2 years of the MRI. Six reviewers from different training levels were categorized as student, resident, or attending and each measured prostate size on CT by the prolate ellipse method. Bland-Altman analysis determined the degree of agreement between CT and MRI. Inter- and intra-observer reliability was calculated for CT.
resultsMean CT volume was higher than MRI volume in the < 60 g group (51.5 g vs. 44.5 g, p = 0.004), but not in the ≥ 60 g group (101 g vs. 100 g, p = 0.458). The bias for overestimation of prostate volume by CT was 4.1 g across prostate volumes, but the proportional agreement between modalities improved with size. The Pearson correlation coefficient between CT/MRI and inter/intra-rater reliability for CT increased in the ≥ 60 g vs. the < 60 g group for all training levels.
conclusionsOur data show that there is greater clinical utility for prostate size estimation by CT than previously established, particularly for larger glands where accurate size estimation may influence therapeutic decisions. In larger glands, prostate size estimation by CT is also reproducible across various training levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38776056What 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.