ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
A novel simplified transperineal prostate biopsy guided by perineal ultrasound.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research on prostate brachytherapy puncture control strategy based on adaptive PID control with FBG sensors.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProstate biopsies are mainly performed through transrectal or perineal approaches, while ultrasound probes are located in the rectum for guidance. However, reports on the use of perineal ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy (PG-TPPB) are few.
methodsA retrospective case-control study was designed. A total of 111 patients who underwent PG-TPPB from February 2019 to December 2020 were investigated retrospectively. Simultaneously, 188 patients who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPB) were included as control. The prostate cancer detection rates (PCDR), complication rates, and application values were compared between the 2 groups.
resultsThe overall PCDR in the PG-TPPB and TRPB groups were 33.3% (37/111) and 39.9% (75/188), respectively (P = .258). There was no significant difference in the PCDR between the 2 groups under each prostate-specific antigen level (all P > .05). The single-needle PCDR in the PG-TPPB and TRPB groups were 21.5% (277/1 287) and 24.0% (513/2 134), respectively (P = .091). The incidence of complications in the PG-TPPB group was significantly lower than that in the TRPB group (8.1% vs 21.3%, P = .003).
conclusionsThe PCDRs of PG-TPPB and TRPB were the same. However, the postoperative complication rate of PG-TPPB was significantly lower than that of TRPB. Moreover, PG-TPPB required simpler equipment and did not require enema administration, which is suitable for patients with rectal contraindications. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The reports on PG-TPPB are few. Our study indicated that PG-TPPB reduced the postoperative complication rate. Moreover, PG-TPPB required simpler equipment. Importantly, PG-TPPB is suitable for patients with rectal contraindications.
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.