Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39128089›Full record

ArticleThe Eurasian journal of medicine2023

Evaluating the Effectiveness and Safety of Robotic-Assisted MRI/TRUS Fusion Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Systems: A Narrative Review Based on Current Literature.

Akif Erbin, Ufuk Çağlar, Rüştü Türkay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Eurasian journal of medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Akif ErbinDepartment of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ufuk ÇağlarDepartment of Urology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Rüştü TürkayDepartment of Radiology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic-assisted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion transperineal biopsy systems are one of the most debated and interesting subjects both in practice and in current urology literature. The comprehensive literature research was carried out in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases using the terms "robotic transperineal prostate biopsy," "robot-assisted MRI/US fusion biopsy," "robot-assisted MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy," or "robotic targeted prostate biopsies." All article types were included in the study (n=343). Among these, articles in non-English languages, duplicate articles, review articles, guidelines, and book chapters were excluded from the study (n=325). Additionally, articles on In-bore biopsy and semirigid device techniques were also excluded from the study (n=5). A total of 13 original research studies (3 retrospective and 10 prospective nonrandomized studies; total number of patients=1844) performed with 2 diferent robotic-assisted transperineal biopsy platforms (iSR'obot™ MonaLisa, Biobot Surgical, Singapore; and Artemis™, Eigen,GRASS VALLEY, USA) were analyzed in detail. The overall cancer detection rates ranged from 51.2% to 73.7%, while the rates of detecting clinically significant (cs) prostate cancer (Pca) ranged from 23.0% to 52.7% in patients who had not been previously diagnosed with prostate cancer. Among the 1844 patients, only 2 individuals (0.01%) were diagnosed with urosepsis. Although the role of these devices in prostate biopsies is not completely clear, the robot-assisted transperineal prostate biopsy technique is an efective and safe procedure, with high rates of csPCa detection and acceptable rates of complications, especially in terms of urosepsis.

Identifiers

PMID39128089
PMCPMC11075013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.